Rate And Regulatory Matters

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

Public Utilities Disclosure [Text Block]

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 Arkansas

Production Cost Allocation Rider

In May 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider, which reflected recovery of the production cost allocation rider true-up adjustment of the 2014 and 2015 unrecovered retail balance in the amount of $1.9 million. Additionally, the redetermined rates reflect the recovery of a $1.9 million System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment resulting from a compliance filing pursuant to the FERC’s December 2015 order related to test year 2009 production costs. The rates for the 2016 production cost allocation rider update became effective with the first billing cycle of July 2016, and rates will be effective through June 2017.

Entergy Louisiana

In April 2010 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 through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009.  The LPSC staff issued its audit report in January 2013.  The LPSC staff recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $1.9 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $1 million from Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates.  The recommended refund was made by Entergy Louisiana in May 2013 in the form of a credit to customers through its fuel adjustment clause filing. Two parties intervened in the proceeding. A procedural schedule was established for the identification of issues by the intervenors and for Entergy Louisiana to submit comments regarding the LPSC staff report and any issues raised by intervenors. One intervenor sought further proceedings regarding certain issues it raised in its comments on the LPSC staff report. Entergy Louisiana filed responses to both the LPSC staff report and the issues raised by the intervenor. After conducting additional discovery, in April 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its supplemental audit report, which concluded that Entergy Louisiana was not imprudent on the issues raised by the intervenor. A procedural schedule has been established for this proceeding, including an evidentiary hearing in November 2016.

In December 2011 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate a proceeding to audit the fuel adjustment clause filings of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and its affiliates.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period 2005 through 2009.  In March 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its audit report. In its report, the LPSC staff consultant recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $8.6 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $12.7 millionfrom Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates. Entergy Louisiana has recorded a provision for the estimated outcome of this proceeding. A procedural schedule has been established for this proceeding, including a hearing in December 2016.

In June 2016 the LPSC staff provided notice of an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings and purchased gas adjustment clause filings. In recognition of the business combination that occurred in 2015, the audit notice was issued to Entergy Louisiana and will also include a review of charges to legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers prior to the business combination. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment and purchased gas adjustment mechanisms for the period from 2012 through 2015. Discovery has not commenced.

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. In November 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included a projected over-recovery balance of $48 million projected through January 31, 2016. In January 2016 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective February 1, 2016. The MPSC further ordered, however, that due to the significant change in natural gas price forecasts since Entergy Mississippi’s filing in November 2015, Entergy Mississippi shall file a revised fuel factor with the MPSC no later than February 1, 2016. Pursuant to that order, Entergy Mississippi submitted a revised fuel factor. Additionally, because Entergy Mississippi’s projected over-recovery balance for the period ending January 31, 2017 was $68 million, in February 2016, Entergy Mississippi filed for another interim adjustment to the energy cost factor effective April 2016 to flow through to customers the projected over-recovery balance over a six-month period. That interim adjustment was approved by the MPSC in February 2016 effective for April 2016 bills.

Entergy Texas

As discussed in the Form 10-K, 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. In January 2016 the PUCT issued its order affirming the ALJ’s recommendation, and Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the PUCT’s decision, which the PUCT denied. In March 2016, Entergy Texas filed a complaint in Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas and a petition in the Travis County (State) District Court appealing the PUCT’s decision. Both appeals are pending, but the appeals do not stay the PUCT’s decision. The federal appeal is scheduled to be heard in December 2016. In April 2016, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application to refund to customers approximately $56.2 million. The refund resulted from (i) $41.8 million of fuel cost recovery over-collections through February 2016, (ii) the $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments, discussed above, that Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs, and (iii) $3.5 million in bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received related to 2006-2008 production costs. In June 2016, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed settlement agreement that added additional over-recovered fuel costs for the months of March and April 2016. The settlement resulted in a $68 million refund. The ALJ approved the refund on an interim basis to be made to most customers over a four-month period beginning with the first billing cycle of July 2016. In July 2016 the PUCT issued an order approving the interim refund.

In July 2016, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2016. Under a recent PUCT rule change, a fuel reconciliation is required to be filed at least once every three years and outside of a base rate case filing. During the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas incurred approximately $1.77 billion in Texas jurisdictional eligible fuel and purchased power expenses, net of certain revenues credited to such expenses and other adjustments. Entergy Texas estimates an over-recovery balance of approximately $19.3 million, including interest, which Entergy Texas is requesting authority to carry over as the beginning balance for the subsequent reconciliation period beginning Apri1 2016. Entergy Texas also notes, however, that the $19.3 million over collection is currently being refunded to customers as a portion of the interim fuel refund beginning with the first billing cycle of July 2016, discussed above. Entergy Texas also is requesting a prudence finding for each of the fuel-related contracts and arrangements entered into or modified during the reconciliation period that have not be reviewed by the PUCT in a prior proceeding. The PUCT has one year to issue a final order in this proceeding.

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

2015 Rate Case

In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notified the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requested a retail rate increase of$268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requested a 10.2% return on common equity. In September 2015 the 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. In December 2015, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and certain of the intervenors in the rate case filed with the APSC a joint motion for approval of a settlement of the case that proposed a retail rate increase of approximately $225 million with a net increase in revenue of approximately $133 million; an authorized return on common equity of 9.75%; and a formula rate plan tariff that provides a +/- 50 basis point band around the 9.75% allowed return on common equity. A significant portion of the rate increase is related to Entergy Arkansas’s acquisition in March 2016 of Union Power Station Power Block 2 for a base purchase price of $237 million, subject to closing adjustments. The settlement agreement also provided for amortization over a 10-year period of $7.7 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO post-Fukushima compliance and $9.9 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO flood barrier compliance. A settlement hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that would reduce the retail rate increase proposed in the settlement by $5 million. The settling parties agreed to the APSC modifications in February 2016. The new rates were effective February 24, 2016 and began billing with the first billing cycle of April 2016. In March 2016, Entergy Arkansas made a compliance filing regarding the new rates that included an interim base rate adjustment surcharge, effective with the first billing cycle of April 2016, to recover the incremental revenue requirement for the period February 24, 2016 through March 31, 2016. The interim base rate adjustment surcharge will recover a total of $21.1 million over the nine-month period from April 2016 through December 2016.

2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2016 Entergy Arkansas formula rate plan filing showing Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the twelve months ended December 31, 2017 test year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing requests a $68 million rate increase to achieve Entergy Arkansas’s target earned return on common equity of 9.75%. Entergy Arkansas requested an order approving its proposed formula rate plan adjustment by December 9, 2016. If a final order is not issued by this date, the proposed formula rate plan adjustment will become effective December 30, 2016, subject to refund.

Filings with the LPSC

Retail Rates - Electric

2015 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2015 calendar year operations. The evaluation report reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.07%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following other adjustments, however, are required under the formula rate plan: an increase in the legacy Entergy Louisiana additional capacity mechanism of $14.2 million; a separate increase in legacy Entergy Louisiana revenue of $10 million primarily to reflect the effects of the termination of the System Agreement; an increase in the legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana additional capacity mechanism of $0.5 million; a decrease in legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana revenue of $58.7 million primarily to reflect the effects of the termination of the System Agreement; and an increase of $11 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism. Rates are scheduled to be implemented with the first billing cycle of September 2016, subject to refund.

Ninemile 6

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a Ninemile 6 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. Testimony filed by LPSC staff generally supports the prudence of the management of the project and recovery of the costs incurred to complete the project. The LPSC staff had questioned the warranty coverage for one element of the project. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint motion to suspend the procedural schedule pending the filing of an uncontested joint stipulated settlement.

Union Power Station

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2015 the LPSC approved a settlement authorizing the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana acquired Power Blocks 3 and 4 of Union Power Station for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $474 million and implemented rates to collect the estimated first-year revenue requirement with the first billing cycle of March 2016.

As a term of the LPSC-approved settlement authorizing the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station, Entergy Louisiana agreed to make a filing with the LPSC to review its decisions to deactivate Ninemile 3 and Willow Glen 2 and 4 and its decision to retire Little Gypsy 1.  In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana made its compliance filing with the LPSC. Entergy Louisiana, LPSC staff, and intervenors participated in a technical conference in March 2016 where Entergy Louisiana presented information on its deactivation/retirement decisions for these four units in addition to information on the current deactivation decisions for the ten-year planning horizon. Parties have requested further proceedings on the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4.  This matter is pending before an ALJ, and a hearing has been scheduled in March 2017 to determine, under applicable law, whether Willow Glen 2 and 4 units should be returned to service.

Retail Rates - Gas

In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2015. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 10.22%, which is within the authorized bandwidth, therefore requiring no change in rates. In March 2016 the LPSC staff issued its report stating that the 2015 gas rate stabilization plan filing is in compliance with the exception of several issues that require additional information, explanation, or clarification for which the LPSC staff has reserved the right to further review. In July 2016 the parties to the proceeding filed an unopposed joint report and motion for entry of order accepting report that indicates no outstanding issues remain in the filing. Absent approval of an extension by the LPSC, test year 2015 is the final year under the current gas rate stabilization plan. In February 2016, however, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the term of the gas rate stabilization plan for an additional three-year term. A procedural schedule has been established, including a hearing in November 2016.

Filings with the MPSC

In March 2016, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2016 test year filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s projected earned return for the 2016 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing showed a $32.6 million rate increase was necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 9.96%, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. In June 2016 the MPSC approved Entergy Mississippi’s joint stipulation with the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff. The joint stipulation provided for a total revenue increase of $23.7 million. The revenue increase includes a $19.4 million increase through the formula rate plan, resulting in a return on common equity point of adjustment of 10.07%. The revenue increase also includes $4.3 million in incremental ad valorem tax expenses to be collected through an updated ad valorem tax adjustment rider. The revenue increase and ad valorem tax adjustment rider were effective with the July 2016 bills.

Filings with the City Council

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2015 the City Council authorized expansion of the terms of the purchased power and capacity acquisition cost recovery rider to recover the non-fuel purchased power expense from Ninemile 6, the revenue requirement associated with the purchase of Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station, and a credit to customers of $400 thousand monthly beginning June 2016 in recognition of the decrease in other operation and maintenance expenses that would result with the deactivation of Michoud Units 2 and 3. In March 2016, Entergy New Orleans purchased Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station for approximately $237 million and initiated recovery of these costs with March 2016 bills. In July 2016, Entergy New Orleans and the City Council Utility Committee agreed to a temporary increase in the credit to customers to a total of $1.4 million monthly for August 2016 through December 2016.

Internal Restructuring

In July 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a restructuring which would result in the transfer of substantially all of the assets and operations of Entergy New Orleans to a new entity, which would ultimately be held by an existing Entergy subsidiary holding company. The restructuring is subject to regulatory review and approval of the City Council and the FERC. If the application is approved by the City Council in 2016, Entergy New Orleans has proposed to credit retail customers $5 million in each of the years 2016 and 2017. The filing with the FERC has not yet been made, but if the restructuring is approved by the FERC by December 31, 2018, Entergy New Orleans has proposed to credit retail customers $5 million in each of the years 2018, 2019, and 2020.  If City Council and FERC approvals are obtained, Entergy New Orleans expects the restructuring will be consummated by December 31, 2017.

It is currently contemplated that Entergy New Orleans would undertake a multi-step restructuring, which would include the following:

• Entergy New Orleans would redeem its outstanding preferred stock at a price of approximately $21 million, which includes an expected call premium of approximately $819,000, plus any accumulated and unpaid dividends.

• Entergy New Orleans would convert from a Louisiana corporation to a Texas corporation.

• Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy New Orleans will allocate substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy New Orleans Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy New Orleans Power), and Entergy New Orleans Power will assume substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy New Orleans, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy New Orleans will remain in existence and hold the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power.

• Entergy New Orleans will contribute the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy New Orleans Power will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

• Entergy New Orleans will change its name to Entergy New Orleans Holdings, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans Power will then change its name to Entergy New Orleans, LLC.

Upon the completion of the restructuring, Entergy New Orleans, LLC will hold substantially all of the assets, and will have assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy New Orleans. Entergy New Orleans may modify or supplement the steps to be taken to effectuate the restructuring.

Filings with the PUCT

2011 Rate Case

See the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Texas’s 2011 rate case. As discussed in the Form 10-K, several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced in the Form 10-K, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. In April 2016 the Third Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the District Court’s decision on all points. Entergy Texas petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. That petition is pending.

Other Filings

In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony was filed in November 2015, with the PUCT staff and other parties proposing various disallowances involving, among other things, MISO charges, vegetation management costs, and bad debt expenses that would reduce the requested increase by approximately $2 million. In addition to those recommended disallowances, a number of parties recommended that Entergy Texas’s request be reduced by an additional $3.4 million to account for load growth since base rates were last set. A hearing on the merits was held in December 2015. In February 2016 a State Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the PUCT disallow approximately $2 million from Entergy Texas’s $13 million request, but recommending that the PUCT not accept the load growth offset. In April 2016 the PUCT voted to allow Entergy Texas’s TCRF rates to become effective as of April 14, 2016 when those rates are finally approved, but did not otherwise address the proposal for decision. In May 2016 the PUCT deferred final consideration of Entergy Texas’s TCRF application and opened the record to consider additional evidence to be provided by Entergy Texas and potentially other parties regarding the rate-making treatment of spare transmission-level transformers that are transferred among the Utility operating companies.  In June 2016 the PUCT indicated that it would take up in a future rulemaking project the issue of whether a load growth adjustment should apply to a TCRF. In July 2016 the PUCT issued an order generally accepting the proposal for decision but declining to adjust the TCRF baseline in two instances as recommended by the ALJ, which results in a total annual allowance of approximately $10.5 million. The PUCT also ordered its staff and Entergy Texas to track all spare autotransformer transfers going forward so that it could address the appropriate accounting treatment and prudence of such transfers in Entergy Texas’s next base rate case.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

Consolidated 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Rate Filing Proceedings

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2014 the FERC consolidated the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. 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. 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 occurred in November 2015, and an initial decision from the ALJ was issued in July 2016. In the initial decision, the ALJ generally agreed with Entergy’s bandwidth calculations with one exception on the accounting related to the Waterford 3 sale/leaseback. Briefs are due in August and September 2016.

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. In March 2016, Entergy Services filed a settlement at the FERC resolving the 2015 rate filing. In the settlement, the parties did not dispute the 2015 rates as calculated with no payments or receipts. Pursuant to the settlement, the 2015 rates are subject to a recalculation and compliance filing upon resolution of other ongoing bandwidth-related proceedings. The settlement is pending at the FERC.

2016 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2015 Production Costs

In May 2016, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2016 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing showed that no payments and receipts were required in 2016 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2015 production costs. The LPSC and City Council intervened in the proceeding.

Interruptible Load Proceedings

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the interruptible load proceeding. In April 2016 the FERC issued an order on remand that addressed the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding. The order on remand affirmed the FERC’s denial of refunds for the 15-month refund effective period. The FERC explained and clarified its policies regarding refunds and concluded that the evidence in the record demonstrated that the relevant equitable factors favored not requiring refunds in this case. The FERC also noted that, under Section 206(c) of the Federal Power Act, in a Section 206 proceeding involving two or more electric utility companies of a registered holding company system, the FERC may order refunds only if it determines the refunds would not cause the registered holding company to experience any reduction in revenues resulting from an inability of an electric utility company in the system to recover the resulting increase in costs. The FERC stated it was not able to find that the Entergy system would not experience a reduction in revenues if refunds were awarded in this proceeding, which further supported the denial of refunds. In May 2016 the LPSC filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceedings

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceeding initiated at the FERC by the LPSC in June 2009 in which the LPSC initially requested that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocate the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibits sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies.  In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing the requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denies Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirms FERC’s earlier rulings that Entergy’s original methodology for allocating energy costs to the opportunity sales was incorrect and, as a result, Entergy Arkansas must make payments to the other Utility operating companies to put them in the same position that they would have been in absent the incorrect allocation. The FERC clarified that interest should be included with the payments. The second order affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the rulings in the ALJ’s initial decision regarding the methodology that should be used to calculate the payments Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The FERC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that a full re-run of intra-system bills should be performed, but required that methodology be modified so that the sales have the same priority for purposes of energy allocation as joint account sales. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that adjustments to other System Agreement service schedules and excess bandwidth payments should not be taken into account when calculating the payments to be made by Entergy Arkansas. The FERC held that such adjustments and excess bandwidth payments should be taken into account, but ordered further proceedings before an ALJ to address whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology.

The effect of the FERC’s decisions, if upheld, is that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. As part of the further proceedings required by the FERC, Entergy will re-run intra-system bills for a ten-year period (2000-2009) to quantify the effects of the FERC's rulings. The ALJ will issue an initial decision and FERC will issue an order reviewing that decision. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing that initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order. Because further proceedings are required, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case, however, in the first quarter 2016 Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retail and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Therefore Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory asset of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs.

In May 2016 a procedural schedule was established with a hearing in May 2017 and an initial decision expected in August 2017. Also in May 2016, Entergy Services filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the requests for rehearing filed in July 2012. Entergy Services also filed a request for clarification and/or rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The APSC and the LPSC also filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order.

Storm Cost Recovery

Entergy Mississippi

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in February 2015, Entergy Mississippi provided notice to the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff that the storm damage provision would be set to zero effective with the March 2015 billing cycle as a result of Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance exceeding $15 million as of January 31, 2015, but would return to its current level when the storm damage provision balance becomes less than $10 million. As of April 30, 2016, Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance was less than $10 million, therefore Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with June 2016 bills.

Entergy Arkansas [Member]

Public Utilities Disclosure [Text Block]

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 Arkansas

Production Cost Allocation Rider

In May 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider, which reflected recovery of the production cost allocation rider true-up adjustment of the 2014 and 2015 unrecovered retail balance in the amount of $1.9 million. Additionally, the redetermined rates reflect the recovery of a $1.9 million System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment resulting from a compliance filing pursuant to the FERC’s December 2015 order related to test year 2009 production costs. The rates for the 2016 production cost allocation rider update became effective with the first billing cycle of July 2016, and rates will be effective through June 2017.

Entergy Louisiana

In April 2010 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 through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009.  The LPSC staff issued its audit report in January 2013.  The LPSC staff recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $1.9 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $1 million from Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates.  The recommended refund was made by Entergy Louisiana in May 2013 in the form of a credit to customers through its fuel adjustment clause filing. Two parties intervened in the proceeding. A procedural schedule was established for the identification of issues by the intervenors and for Entergy Louisiana to submit comments regarding the LPSC staff report and any issues raised by intervenors. One intervenor sought further proceedings regarding certain issues it raised in its comments on the LPSC staff report. Entergy Louisiana filed responses to both the LPSC staff report and the issues raised by the intervenor. After conducting additional discovery, in April 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its supplemental audit report, which concluded that Entergy Louisiana was not imprudent on the issues raised by the intervenor. A procedural schedule has been established for this proceeding, including an evidentiary hearing in November 2016.

In December 2011 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate a proceeding to audit the fuel adjustment clause filings of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and its affiliates.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period 2005 through 2009.  In March 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its audit report. In its report, the LPSC staff consultant recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $8.6 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $12.7 millionfrom Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates. Entergy Louisiana has recorded a provision for the estimated outcome of this proceeding. A procedural schedule has been established for this proceeding, including a hearing in December 2016.

In June 2016 the LPSC staff provided notice of an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings and purchased gas adjustment clause filings. In recognition of the business combination that occurred in 2015, the audit notice was issued to Entergy Louisiana and will also include a review of charges to legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers prior to the business combination. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment and purchased gas adjustment mechanisms for the period from 2012 through 2015. Discovery has not commenced.

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. In November 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included a projected over-recovery balance of $48 million projected through January 31, 2016. In January 2016 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective February 1, 2016. The MPSC further ordered, however, that due to the significant change in natural gas price forecasts since Entergy Mississippi’s filing in November 2015, Entergy Mississippi shall file a revised fuel factor with the MPSC no later than February 1, 2016. Pursuant to that order, Entergy Mississippi submitted a revised fuel factor. Additionally, because Entergy Mississippi’s projected over-recovery balance for the period ending January 31, 2017 was $68 million, in February 2016, Entergy Mississippi filed for another interim adjustment to the energy cost factor effective April 2016 to flow through to customers the projected over-recovery balance over a six-month period. That interim adjustment was approved by the MPSC in February 2016 effective for April 2016 bills.

Entergy Texas

As discussed in the Form 10-K, 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. In January 2016 the PUCT issued its order affirming the ALJ’s recommendation, and Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the PUCT’s decision, which the PUCT denied. In March 2016, Entergy Texas filed a complaint in Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas and a petition in the Travis County (State) District Court appealing the PUCT’s decision. Both appeals are pending, but the appeals do not stay the PUCT’s decision. The federal appeal is scheduled to be heard in December 2016. In April 2016, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application to refund to customers approximately $56.2 million. The refund resulted from (i) $41.8 million of fuel cost recovery over-collections through February 2016, (ii) the $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments, discussed above, that Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs, and (iii) $3.5 million in bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received related to 2006-2008 production costs. In June 2016, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed settlement agreement that added additional over-recovered fuel costs for the months of March and April 2016. The settlement resulted in a $68 million refund. The ALJ approved the refund on an interim basis to be made to most customers over a four-month period beginning with the first billing cycle of July 2016. In July 2016 the PUCT issued an order approving the interim refund.

In July 2016, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2016. Under a recent PUCT rule change, a fuel reconciliation is required to be filed at least once every three years and outside of a base rate case filing. During the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas incurred approximately $1.77 billion in Texas jurisdictional eligible fuel and purchased power expenses, net of certain revenues credited to such expenses and other adjustments. Entergy Texas estimates an over-recovery balance of approximately $19.3 million, including interest, which Entergy Texas is requesting authority to carry over as the beginning balance for the subsequent reconciliation period beginning Apri1 2016. Entergy Texas also notes, however, that the $19.3 million over collection is currently being refunded to customers as a portion of the interim fuel refund beginning with the first billing cycle of July 2016, discussed above. Entergy Texas also is requesting a prudence finding for each of the fuel-related contracts and arrangements entered into or modified during the reconciliation period that have not be reviewed by the PUCT in a prior proceeding. The PUCT has one year to issue a final order in this proceeding.

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

2015 Rate Case

In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notified the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requested a retail rate increase of$268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requested a 10.2% return on common equity. In September 2015 the 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. In December 2015, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and certain of the intervenors in the rate case filed with the APSC a joint motion for approval of a settlement of the case that proposed a retail rate increase of approximately $225 million with a net increase in revenue of approximately $133 million; an authorized return on common equity of 9.75%; and a formula rate plan tariff that provides a +/- 50 basis point band around the 9.75% allowed return on common equity. A significant portion of the rate increase is related to Entergy Arkansas’s acquisition in March 2016 of Union Power Station Power Block 2 for a base purchase price of $237 million, subject to closing adjustments. The settlement agreement also provided for amortization over a 10-year period of $7.7 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO post-Fukushima compliance and $9.9 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO flood barrier compliance. A settlement hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that would reduce the retail rate increase proposed in the settlement by $5 million. The settling parties agreed to the APSC modifications in February 2016. The new rates were effective February 24, 2016 and began billing with the first billing cycle of April 2016. In March 2016, Entergy Arkansas made a compliance filing regarding the new rates that included an interim base rate adjustment surcharge, effective with the first billing cycle of April 2016, to recover the incremental revenue requirement for the period February 24, 2016 through March 31, 2016. The interim base rate adjustment surcharge will recover a total of $21.1 million over the nine-month period from April 2016 through December 2016.

2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2016 Entergy Arkansas formula rate plan filing showing Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the twelve months ended December 31, 2017 test year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing requests a $68 million rate increase to achieve Entergy Arkansas’s target earned return on common equity of 9.75%. Entergy Arkansas requested an order approving its proposed formula rate plan adjustment by December 9, 2016. If a final order is not issued by this date, the proposed formula rate plan adjustment will become effective December 30, 2016, subject to refund.

Filings with the LPSC

Retail Rates - Electric

2015 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2015 calendar year operations. The evaluation report reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.07%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following other adjustments, however, are required under the formula rate plan: an increase in the legacy Entergy Louisiana additional capacity mechanism of $14.2 million; a separate increase in legacy Entergy Louisiana revenue of $10 million primarily to reflect the effects of the termination of the System Agreement; an increase in the legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana additional capacity mechanism of $0.5 million; a decrease in legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana revenue of $58.7 million primarily to reflect the effects of the termination of the System Agreement; and an increase of $11 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism. Rates are scheduled to be implemented with the first billing cycle of September 2016, subject to refund.

Ninemile 6

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a Ninemile 6 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. Testimony filed by LPSC staff generally supports the prudence of the management of the project and recovery of the costs incurred to complete the project. The LPSC staff had questioned the warranty coverage for one element of the project. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint motion to suspend the procedural schedule pending the filing of an uncontested joint stipulated settlement.

Union Power Station

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2015 the LPSC approved a settlement authorizing the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana acquired Power Blocks 3 and 4 of Union Power Station for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $474 million and implemented rates to collect the estimated first-year revenue requirement with the first billing cycle of March 2016.

As a term of the LPSC-approved settlement authorizing the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station, Entergy Louisiana agreed to make a filing with the LPSC to review its decisions to deactivate Ninemile 3 and Willow Glen 2 and 4 and its decision to retire Little Gypsy 1.  In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana made its compliance filing with the LPSC. Entergy Louisiana, LPSC staff, and intervenors participated in a technical conference in March 2016 where Entergy Louisiana presented information on its deactivation/retirement decisions for these four units in addition to information on the current deactivation decisions for the ten-year planning horizon. Parties have requested further proceedings on the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4.  This matter is pending before an ALJ, and a hearing has been scheduled in March 2017 to determine, under applicable law, whether Willow Glen 2 and 4 units should be returned to service.

Retail Rates - Gas

In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2015. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 10.22%, which is within the authorized bandwidth, therefore requiring no change in rates. In March 2016 the LPSC staff issued its report stating that the 2015 gas rate stabilization plan filing is in compliance with the exception of several issues that require additional information, explanation, or clarification for which the LPSC staff has reserved the right to further review. In July 2016 the parties to the proceeding filed an unopposed joint report and motion for entry of order accepting report that indicates no outstanding issues remain in the filing. Absent approval of an extension by the LPSC, test year 2015 is the final year under the current gas rate stabilization plan. In February 2016, however, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the term of the gas rate stabilization plan for an additional three-year term. A procedural schedule has been established, including a hearing in November 2016.

Filings with the MPSC

In March 2016, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2016 test year filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s projected earned return for the 2016 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing showed a $32.6 million rate increase was necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 9.96%, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. In June 2016 the MPSC approved Entergy Mississippi’s joint stipulation with the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff. The joint stipulation provided for a total revenue increase of $23.7 million. The revenue increase includes a $19.4 million increase through the formula rate plan, resulting in a return on common equity point of adjustment of 10.07%. The revenue increase also includes $4.3 million in incremental ad valorem tax expenses to be collected through an updated ad valorem tax adjustment rider. The revenue increase and ad valorem tax adjustment rider were effective with the July 2016 bills.

Filings with the City Council

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2015 the City Council authorized expansion of the terms of the purchased power and capacity acquisition cost recovery rider to recover the non-fuel purchased power expense from Ninemile 6, the revenue requirement associated with the purchase of Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station, and a credit to customers of $400 thousand monthly beginning June 2016 in recognition of the decrease in other operation and maintenance expenses that would result with the deactivation of Michoud Units 2 and 3. In March 2016, Entergy New Orleans purchased Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station for approximately $237 million and initiated recovery of these costs with March 2016 bills. In July 2016, Entergy New Orleans and the City Council Utility Committee agreed to a temporary increase in the credit to customers to a total of $1.4 million monthly for August 2016 through December 2016.

Internal Restructuring

In July 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a restructuring which would result in the transfer of substantially all of the assets and operations of Entergy New Orleans to a new entity, which would ultimately be held by an existing Entergy subsidiary holding company. The restructuring is subject to regulatory review and approval of the City Council and the FERC. If the application is approved by the City Council in 2016, Entergy New Orleans has proposed to credit retail customers $5 million in each of the years 2016 and 2017. The filing with the FERC has not yet been made, but if the restructuring is approved by the FERC by December 31, 2018, Entergy New Orleans has proposed to credit retail customers $5 million in each of the years 2018, 2019, and 2020.  If City Council and FERC approvals are obtained, Entergy New Orleans expects the restructuring will be consummated by December 31, 2017.

It is currently contemplated that Entergy New Orleans would undertake a multi-step restructuring, which would include the following:

• Entergy New Orleans would redeem its outstanding preferred stock at a price of approximately $21 million, which includes an expected call premium of approximately $819,000, plus any accumulated and unpaid dividends.

• Entergy New Orleans would convert from a Louisiana corporation to a Texas corporation.

• Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy New Orleans will allocate substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy New Orleans Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy New Orleans Power), and Entergy New Orleans Power will assume substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy New Orleans, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy New Orleans will remain in existence and hold the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power.

• Entergy New Orleans will contribute the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy New Orleans Power will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

• Entergy New Orleans will change its name to Entergy New Orleans Holdings, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans Power will then change its name to Entergy New Orleans, LLC.

Upon the completion of the restructuring, Entergy New Orleans, LLC will hold substantially all of the assets, and will have assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy New Orleans. Entergy New Orleans may modify or supplement the steps to be taken to effectuate the restructuring.

Filings with the PUCT

2011 Rate Case

See the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Texas’s 2011 rate case. As discussed in the Form 10-K, several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced in the Form 10-K, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. In April 2016 the Third Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the District Court’s decision on all points. Entergy Texas petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. That petition is pending.

Other Filings

In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony was filed in November 2015, with the PUCT staff and other parties proposing various disallowances involving, among other things, MISO charges, vegetation management costs, and bad debt expenses that would reduce the requested increase by approximately $2 million. In addition to those recommended disallowances, a number of parties recommended that Entergy Texas’s request be reduced by an additional $3.4 million to account for load growth since base rates were last set. A hearing on the merits was held in December 2015. In February 2016 a State Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the PUCT disallow approximately $2 million from Entergy Texas’s $13 million request, but recommending that the PUCT not accept the load growth offset. In April 2016 the PUCT voted to allow Entergy Texas’s TCRF rates to become effective as of April 14, 2016 when those rates are finally approved, but did not otherwise address the proposal for decision. In May 2016 the PUCT deferred final consideration of Entergy Texas’s TCRF application and opened the record to consider additional evidence to be provided by Entergy Texas and potentially other parties regarding the rate-making treatment of spare transmission-level transformers that are transferred among the Utility operating companies.  In June 2016 the PUCT indicated that it would take up in a future rulemaking project the issue of whether a load growth adjustment should apply to a TCRF. In July 2016 the PUCT issued an order generally accepting the proposal for decision but declining to adjust the TCRF baseline in two instances as recommended by the ALJ, which results in a total annual allowance of approximately $10.5 million. The PUCT also ordered its staff and Entergy Texas to track all spare autotransformer transfers going forward so that it could address the appropriate accounting treatment and prudence of such transfers in Entergy Texas’s next base rate case.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

Consolidated 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Rate Filing Proceedings

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2014 the FERC consolidated the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. 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. 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 occurred in November 2015, and an initial decision from the ALJ was issued in July 2016. In the initial decision, the ALJ generally agreed with Entergy’s bandwidth calculations with one exception on the accounting related to the Waterford 3 sale/leaseback. Briefs are due in August and September 2016.

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. In March 2016, Entergy Services filed a settlement at the FERC resolving the 2015 rate filing. In the settlement, the parties did not dispute the 2015 rates as calculated with no payments or receipts. Pursuant to the settlement, the 2015 rates are subject to a recalculation and compliance filing upon resolution of other ongoing bandwidth-related proceedings. The settlement is pending at the FERC.

2016 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2015 Production Costs

In May 2016, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2016 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing showed that no payments and receipts were required in 2016 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2015 production costs. The LPSC and City Council intervened in the proceeding.

Interruptible Load Proceedings

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the interruptible load proceeding. In April 2016 the FERC issued an order on remand that addressed the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding. The order on remand affirmed the FERC’s denial of refunds for the 15-month refund effective period. The FERC explained and clarified its policies regarding refunds and concluded that the evidence in the record demonstrated that the relevant equitable factors favored not requiring refunds in this case. The FERC also noted that, under Section 206(c) of the Federal Power Act, in a Section 206 proceeding involving two or more electric utility companies of a registered holding company system, the FERC may order refunds only if it determines the refunds would not cause the registered holding company to experience any reduction in revenues resulting from an inability of an electric utility company in the system to recover the resulting increase in costs. The FERC stated it was not able to find that the Entergy system would not experience a reduction in revenues if refunds were awarded in this proceeding, which further supported the denial of refunds. In May 2016 the LPSC filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceedings

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceeding initiated at the FERC by the LPSC in June 2009 in which the LPSC initially requested that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocate the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibits sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies.  In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing the requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denies Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirms FERC’s earlier rulings that Entergy’s original methodology for allocating energy costs to the opportunity sales was incorrect and, as a result, Entergy Arkansas must make payments to the other Utility operating companies to put them in the same position that they would have been in absent the incorrect allocation. The FERC clarified that interest should be included with the payments. The second order affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the rulings in the ALJ’s initial decision regarding the methodology that should be used to calculate the payments Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The FERC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that a full re-run of intra-system bills should be performed, but required that methodology be modified so that the sales have the same priority for purposes of energy allocation as joint account sales. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that adjustments to other System Agreement service schedules and excess bandwidth payments should not be taken into account when calculating the payments to be made by Entergy Arkansas. The FERC held that such adjustments and excess bandwidth payments should be taken into account, but ordered further proceedings before an ALJ to address whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology.

The effect of the FERC’s decisions, if upheld, is that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. As part of the further proceedings required by the FERC, Entergy will re-run intra-system bills for a ten-year period (2000-2009) to quantify the effects of the FERC's rulings. The ALJ will issue an initial decision and FERC will issue an order reviewing that decision. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing that initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order. Because further proceedings are required, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case, however, in the first quarter 2016 Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retail and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Therefore Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory asset of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs.

In May 2016 a procedural schedule was established with a hearing in May 2017 and an initial decision expected in August 2017. Also in May 2016, Entergy Services filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the requests for rehearing filed in July 2012. Entergy Services also filed a request for clarification and/or rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The APSC and the LPSC also filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order.

Storm Cost Recovery

Entergy Mississippi

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in February 2015, Entergy Mississippi provided notice to the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff that the storm damage provision would be set to zero effective with the March 2015 billing cycle as a result of Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance exceeding $15 million as of January 31, 2015, but would return to its current level when the storm damage provision balance becomes less than $10 million. As of April 30, 2016, Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance was less than $10 million, therefore Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with June 2016 bills.

Entergy Louisiana [Member]

Public Utilities Disclosure [Text Block]

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 Arkansas

Production Cost Allocation Rider

In May 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider, which reflected recovery of the production cost allocation rider true-up adjustment of the 2014 and 2015 unrecovered retail balance in the amount of $1.9 million. Additionally, the redetermined rates reflect the recovery of a $1.9 million System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment resulting from a compliance filing pursuant to the FERC’s December 2015 order related to test year 2009 production costs. The rates for the 2016 production cost allocation rider update became effective with the first billing cycle of July 2016, and rates will be effective through June 2017.

Entergy Louisiana

In April 2010 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 through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009.  The LPSC staff issued its audit report in January 2013.  The LPSC staff recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $1.9 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $1 million from Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates.  The recommended refund was made by Entergy Louisiana in May 2013 in the form of a credit to customers through its fuel adjustment clause filing. Two parties intervened in the proceeding. A procedural schedule was established for the identification of issues by the intervenors and for Entergy Louisiana to submit comments regarding the LPSC staff report and any issues raised by intervenors. One intervenor sought further proceedings regarding certain issues it raised in its comments on the LPSC staff report. Entergy Louisiana filed responses to both the LPSC staff report and the issues raised by the intervenor. After conducting additional discovery, in April 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its supplemental audit report, which concluded that Entergy Louisiana was not imprudent on the issues raised by the intervenor. A procedural schedule has been established for this proceeding, including an evidentiary hearing in November 2016.

In December 2011 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate a proceeding to audit the fuel adjustment clause filings of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and its affiliates.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period 2005 through 2009.  In March 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its audit report. In its report, the LPSC staff consultant recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $8.6 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $12.7 millionfrom Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates. Entergy Louisiana has recorded a provision for the estimated outcome of this proceeding. A procedural schedule has been established for this proceeding, including a hearing in December 2016.

In June 2016 the LPSC staff provided notice of an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings and purchased gas adjustment clause filings. In recognition of the business combination that occurred in 2015, the audit notice was issued to Entergy Louisiana and will also include a review of charges to legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers prior to the business combination. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment and purchased gas adjustment mechanisms for the period from 2012 through 2015. Discovery has not commenced.

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. In November 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included a projected over-recovery balance of $48 million projected through January 31, 2016. In January 2016 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective February 1, 2016. The MPSC further ordered, however, that due to the significant change in natural gas price forecasts since Entergy Mississippi’s filing in November 2015, Entergy Mississippi shall file a revised fuel factor with the MPSC no later than February 1, 2016. Pursuant to that order, Entergy Mississippi submitted a revised fuel factor. Additionally, because Entergy Mississippi’s projected over-recovery balance for the period ending January 31, 2017 was $68 million, in February 2016, Entergy Mississippi filed for another interim adjustment to the energy cost factor effective April 2016 to flow through to customers the projected over-recovery balance over a six-month period. That interim adjustment was approved by the MPSC in February 2016 effective for April 2016 bills.

Entergy Texas

As discussed in the Form 10-K, 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. In January 2016 the PUCT issued its order affirming the ALJ’s recommendation, and Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the PUCT’s decision, which the PUCT denied. In March 2016, Entergy Texas filed a complaint in Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas and a petition in the Travis County (State) District Court appealing the PUCT’s decision. Both appeals are pending, but the appeals do not stay the PUCT’s decision. The federal appeal is scheduled to be heard in December 2016. In April 2016, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application to refund to customers approximately $56.2 million. The refund resulted from (i) $41.8 million of fuel cost recovery over-collections through February 2016, (ii) the $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments, discussed above, that Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs, and (iii) $3.5 million in bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received related to 2006-2008 production costs. In June 2016, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed settlement agreement that added additional over-recovered fuel costs for the months of March and April 2016. The settlement resulted in a $68 million refund. The ALJ approved the refund on an interim basis to be made to most customers over a four-month period beginning with the first billing cycle of July 2016. In July 2016 the PUCT issued an order approving the interim refund.

In July 2016, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2016. Under a recent PUCT rule change, a fuel reconciliation is required to be filed at least once every three years and outside of a base rate case filing. During the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas incurred approximately $1.77 billion in Texas jurisdictional eligible fuel and purchased power expenses, net of certain revenues credited to such expenses and other adjustments. Entergy Texas estimates an over-recovery balance of approximately $19.3 million, including interest, which Entergy Texas is requesting authority to carry over as the beginning balance for the subsequent reconciliation period beginning Apri1 2016. Entergy Texas also notes, however, that the $19.3 million over collection is currently being refunded to customers as a portion of the interim fuel refund beginning with the first billing cycle of July 2016, discussed above. Entergy Texas also is requesting a prudence finding for each of the fuel-related contracts and arrangements entered into or modified during the reconciliation period that have not be reviewed by the PUCT in a prior proceeding. The PUCT has one year to issue a final order in this proceeding.

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

2015 Rate Case

In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notified the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requested a retail rate increase of$268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requested a 10.2% return on common equity. In September 2015 the 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. In December 2015, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and certain of the intervenors in the rate case filed with the APSC a joint motion for approval of a settlement of the case that proposed a retail rate increase of approximately $225 million with a net increase in revenue of approximately $133 million; an authorized return on common equity of 9.75%; and a formula rate plan tariff that provides a +/- 50 basis point band around the 9.75% allowed return on common equity. A significant portion of the rate increase is related to Entergy Arkansas’s acquisition in March 2016 of Union Power Station Power Block 2 for a base purchase price of $237 million, subject to closing adjustments. The settlement agreement also provided for amortization over a 10-year period of $7.7 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO post-Fukushima compliance and $9.9 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO flood barrier compliance. A settlement hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that would reduce the retail rate increase proposed in the settlement by $5 million. The settling parties agreed to the APSC modifications in February 2016. The new rates were effective February 24, 2016 and began billing with the first billing cycle of April 2016. In March 2016, Entergy Arkansas made a compliance filing regarding the new rates that included an interim base rate adjustment surcharge, effective with the first billing cycle of April 2016, to recover the incremental revenue requirement for the period February 24, 2016 through March 31, 2016. The interim base rate adjustment surcharge will recover a total of $21.1 million over the nine-month period from April 2016 through December 2016.

2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2016 Entergy Arkansas formula rate plan filing showing Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the twelve months ended December 31, 2017 test year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing requests a $68 million rate increase to achieve Entergy Arkansas’s target earned return on common equity of 9.75%. Entergy Arkansas requested an order approving its proposed formula rate plan adjustment by December 9, 2016. If a final order is not issued by this date, the proposed formula rate plan adjustment will become effective December 30, 2016, subject to refund.

Filings with the LPSC

Retail Rates - Electric

2015 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2015 calendar year operations. The evaluation report reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.07%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following other adjustments, however, are required under the formula rate plan: an increase in the legacy Entergy Louisiana additional capacity mechanism of $14.2 million; a separate increase in legacy Entergy Louisiana revenue of $10 million primarily to reflect the effects of the termination of the System Agreement; an increase in the legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana additional capacity mechanism of $0.5 million; a decrease in legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana revenue of $58.7 million primarily to reflect the effects of the termination of the System Agreement; and an increase of $11 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism. Rates are scheduled to be implemented with the first billing cycle of September 2016, subject to refund.

Ninemile 6

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a Ninemile 6 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. Testimony filed by LPSC staff generally supports the prudence of the management of the project and recovery of the costs incurred to complete the project. The LPSC staff had questioned the warranty coverage for one element of the project. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint motion to suspend the procedural schedule pending the filing of an uncontested joint stipulated settlement.

Union Power Station

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2015 the LPSC approved a settlement authorizing the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana acquired Power Blocks 3 and 4 of Union Power Station for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $474 million and implemented rates to collect the estimated first-year revenue requirement with the first billing cycle of March 2016.

As a term of the LPSC-approved settlement authorizing the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station, Entergy Louisiana agreed to make a filing with the LPSC to review its decisions to deactivate Ninemile 3 and Willow Glen 2 and 4 and its decision to retire Little Gypsy 1.  In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana made its compliance filing with the LPSC. Entergy Louisiana, LPSC staff, and intervenors participated in a technical conference in March 2016 where Entergy Louisiana presented information on its deactivation/retirement decisions for these four units in addition to information on the current deactivation decisions for the ten-year planning horizon. Parties have requested further proceedings on the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4.  This matter is pending before an ALJ, and a hearing has been scheduled in March 2017 to determine, under applicable law, whether Willow Glen 2 and 4 units should be returned to service.

Retail Rates - Gas

In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2015. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 10.22%, which is within the authorized bandwidth, therefore requiring no change in rates. In March 2016 the LPSC staff issued its report stating that the 2015 gas rate stabilization plan filing is in compliance with the exception of several issues that require additional information, explanation, or clarification for which the LPSC staff has reserved the right to further review. In July 2016 the parties to the proceeding filed an unopposed joint report and motion for entry of order accepting report that indicates no outstanding issues remain in the filing. Absent approval of an extension by the LPSC, test year 2015 is the final year under the current gas rate stabilization plan. In February 2016, however, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the term of the gas rate stabilization plan for an additional three-year term. A procedural schedule has been established, including a hearing in November 2016.

Filings with the MPSC

In March 2016, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2016 test year filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s projected earned return for the 2016 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing showed a $32.6 million rate increase was necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 9.96%, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. In June 2016 the MPSC approved Entergy Mississippi’s joint stipulation with the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff. The joint stipulation provided for a total revenue increase of $23.7 million. The revenue increase includes a $19.4 million increase through the formula rate plan, resulting in a return on common equity point of adjustment of 10.07%. The revenue increase also includes $4.3 million in incremental ad valorem tax expenses to be collected through an updated ad valorem tax adjustment rider. The revenue increase and ad valorem tax adjustment rider were effective with the July 2016 bills.

Filings with the City Council

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2015 the City Council authorized expansion of the terms of the purchased power and capacity acquisition cost recovery rider to recover the non-fuel purchased power expense from Ninemile 6, the revenue requirement associated with the purchase of Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station, and a credit to customers of $400 thousand monthly beginning June 2016 in recognition of the decrease in other operation and maintenance expenses that would result with the deactivation of Michoud Units 2 and 3. In March 2016, Entergy New Orleans purchased Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station for approximately $237 million and initiated recovery of these costs with March 2016 bills. In July 2016, Entergy New Orleans and the City Council Utility Committee agreed to a temporary increase in the credit to customers to a total of $1.4 million monthly for August 2016 through December 2016.

Internal Restructuring

In July 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a restructuring which would result in the transfer of substantially all of the assets and operations of Entergy New Orleans to a new entity, which would ultimately be held by an existing Entergy subsidiary holding company. The restructuring is subject to regulatory review and approval of the City Council and the FERC. If the application is approved by the City Council in 2016, Entergy New Orleans has proposed to credit retail customers $5 million in each of the years 2016 and 2017. The filing with the FERC has not yet been made, but if the restructuring is approved by the FERC by December 31, 2018, Entergy New Orleans has proposed to credit retail customers $5 million in each of the years 2018, 2019, and 2020.  If City Council and FERC approvals are obtained, Entergy New Orleans expects the restructuring will be consummated by December 31, 2017.

It is currently contemplated that Entergy New Orleans would undertake a multi-step restructuring, which would include the following:

• Entergy New Orleans would redeem its outstanding preferred stock at a price of approximately $21 million, which includes an expected call premium of approximately $819,000, plus any accumulated and unpaid dividends.

• Entergy New Orleans would convert from a Louisiana corporation to a Texas corporation.

• Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy New Orleans will allocate substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy New Orleans Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy New Orleans Power), and Entergy New Orleans Power will assume substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy New Orleans, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy New Orleans will remain in existence and hold the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power.

• Entergy New Orleans will contribute the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy New Orleans Power will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

• Entergy New Orleans will change its name to Entergy New Orleans Holdings, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans Power will then change its name to Entergy New Orleans, LLC.

Upon the completion of the restructuring, Entergy New Orleans, LLC will hold substantially all of the assets, and will have assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy New Orleans. Entergy New Orleans may modify or supplement the steps to be taken to effectuate the restructuring.

Filings with the PUCT

2011 Rate Case

See the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Texas’s 2011 rate case. As discussed in the Form 10-K, several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced in the Form 10-K, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. In April 2016 the Third Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the District Court’s decision on all points. Entergy Texas petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. That petition is pending.

Other Filings

In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony was filed in November 2015, with the PUCT staff and other parties proposing various disallowances involving, among other things, MISO charges, vegetation management costs, and bad debt expenses that would reduce the requested increase by approximately $2 million. In addition to those recommended disallowances, a number of parties recommended that Entergy Texas’s request be reduced by an additional $3.4 million to account for load growth since base rates were last set. A hearing on the merits was held in December 2015. In February 2016 a State Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the PUCT disallow approximately $2 million from Entergy Texas’s $13 million request, but recommending that the PUCT not accept the load growth offset. In April 2016 the PUCT voted to allow Entergy Texas’s TCRF rates to become effective as of April 14, 2016 when those rates are finally approved, but did not otherwise address the proposal for decision. In May 2016 the PUCT deferred final consideration of Entergy Texas’s TCRF application and opened the record to consider additional evidence to be provided by Entergy Texas and potentially other parties regarding the rate-making treatment of spare transmission-level transformers that are transferred among the Utility operating companies.  In June 2016 the PUCT indicated that it would take up in a future rulemaking project the issue of whether a load growth adjustment should apply to a TCRF. In July 2016 the PUCT issued an order generally accepting the proposal for decision but declining to adjust the TCRF baseline in two instances as recommended by the ALJ, which results in a total annual allowance of approximately $10.5 million. The PUCT also ordered its staff and Entergy Texas to track all spare autotransformer transfers going forward so that it could address the appropriate accounting treatment and prudence of such transfers in Entergy Texas’s next base rate case.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

Consolidated 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Rate Filing Proceedings

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2014 the FERC consolidated the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. 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. 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 occurred in November 2015, and an initial decision from the ALJ was issued in July 2016. In the initial decision, the ALJ generally agreed with Entergy’s bandwidth calculations with one exception on the accounting related to the Waterford 3 sale/leaseback. Briefs are due in August and September 2016.

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. In March 2016, Entergy Services filed a settlement at the FERC resolving the 2015 rate filing. In the settlement, the parties did not dispute the 2015 rates as calculated with no payments or receipts. Pursuant to the settlement, the 2015 rates are subject to a recalculation and compliance filing upon resolution of other ongoing bandwidth-related proceedings. The settlement is pending at the FERC.

2016 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2015 Production Costs

In May 2016, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2016 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing showed that no payments and receipts were required in 2016 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2015 production costs. The LPSC and City Council intervened in the proceeding.

Interruptible Load Proceedings

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the interruptible load proceeding. In April 2016 the FERC issued an order on remand that addressed the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding. The order on remand affirmed the FERC’s denial of refunds for the 15-month refund effective period. The FERC explained and clarified its policies regarding refunds and concluded that the evidence in the record demonstrated that the relevant equitable factors favored not requiring refunds in this case. The FERC also noted that, under Section 206(c) of the Federal Power Act, in a Section 206 proceeding involving two or more electric utility companies of a registered holding company system, the FERC may order refunds only if it determines the refunds would not cause the registered holding company to experience any reduction in revenues resulting from an inability of an electric utility company in the system to recover the resulting increase in costs. The FERC stated it was not able to find that the Entergy system would not experience a reduction in revenues if refunds were awarded in this proceeding, which further supported the denial of refunds. In May 2016 the LPSC filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceedings

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceeding initiated at the FERC by the LPSC in June 2009 in which the LPSC initially requested that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocate the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibits sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies.  In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing the requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denies Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirms FERC’s earlier rulings that Entergy’s original methodology for allocating energy costs to the opportunity sales was incorrect and, as a result, Entergy Arkansas must make payments to the other Utility operating companies to put them in the same position that they would have been in absent the incorrect allocation. The FERC clarified that interest should be included with the payments. The second order affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the rulings in the ALJ’s initial decision regarding the methodology that should be used to calculate the payments Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The FERC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that a full re-run of intra-system bills should be performed, but required that methodology be modified so that the sales have the same priority for purposes of energy allocation as joint account sales. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that adjustments to other System Agreement service schedules and excess bandwidth payments should not be taken into account when calculating the payments to be made by Entergy Arkansas. The FERC held that such adjustments and excess bandwidth payments should be taken into account, but ordered further proceedings before an ALJ to address whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology.

The effect of the FERC’s decisions, if upheld, is that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. As part of the further proceedings required by the FERC, Entergy will re-run intra-system bills for a ten-year period (2000-2009) to quantify the effects of the FERC's rulings. The ALJ will issue an initial decision and FERC will issue an order reviewing that decision. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing that initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order. Because further proceedings are required, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case, however, in the first quarter 2016 Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retail and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Therefore Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory asset of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs.

In May 2016 a procedural schedule was established with a hearing in May 2017 and an initial decision expected in August 2017. Also in May 2016, Entergy Services filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the requests for rehearing filed in July 2012. Entergy Services also filed a request for clarification and/or rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The APSC and the LPSC also filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order.

Storm Cost Recovery

Entergy Mississippi

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in February 2015, Entergy Mississippi provided notice to the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff that the storm damage provision would be set to zero effective with the March 2015 billing cycle as a result of Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance exceeding $15 million as of January 31, 2015, but would return to its current level when the storm damage provision balance becomes less than $10 million. As of April 30, 2016, Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance was less than $10 million, therefore Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with June 2016 bills.

Entergy Mississippi [Member]

Public Utilities Disclosure [Text Block]

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 Arkansas

Production Cost Allocation Rider

In May 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider, which reflected recovery of the production cost allocation rider true-up adjustment of the 2014 and 2015 unrecovered retail balance in the amount of $1.9 million. Additionally, the redetermined rates reflect the recovery of a $1.9 million System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment resulting from a compliance filing pursuant to the FERC’s December 2015 order related to test year 2009 production costs. The rates for the 2016 production cost allocation rider update became effective with the first billing cycle of July 2016, and rates will be effective through June 2017.

Entergy Louisiana

In April 2010 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 through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009.  The LPSC staff issued its audit report in January 2013.  The LPSC staff recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $1.9 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $1 million from Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates.  The recommended refund was made by Entergy Louisiana in May 2013 in the form of a credit to customers through its fuel adjustment clause filing. Two parties intervened in the proceeding. A procedural schedule was established for the identification of issues by the intervenors and for Entergy Louisiana to submit comments regarding the LPSC staff report and any issues raised by intervenors. One intervenor sought further proceedings regarding certain issues it raised in its comments on the LPSC staff report. Entergy Louisiana filed responses to both the LPSC staff report and the issues raised by the intervenor. After conducting additional discovery, in April 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its supplemental audit report, which concluded that Entergy Louisiana was not imprudent on the issues raised by the intervenor. A procedural schedule has been established for this proceeding, including an evidentiary hearing in November 2016.

In December 2011 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate a proceeding to audit the fuel adjustment clause filings of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and its affiliates.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period 2005 through 2009.  In March 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its audit report. In its report, the LPSC staff consultant recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $8.6 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $12.7 millionfrom Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates. Entergy Louisiana has recorded a provision for the estimated outcome of this proceeding. A procedural schedule has been established for this proceeding, including a hearing in December 2016.

In June 2016 the LPSC staff provided notice of an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings and purchased gas adjustment clause filings. In recognition of the business combination that occurred in 2015, the audit notice was issued to Entergy Louisiana and will also include a review of charges to legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers prior to the business combination. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment and purchased gas adjustment mechanisms for the period from 2012 through 2015. Discovery has not commenced.

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. In November 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included a projected over-recovery balance of $48 million projected through January 31, 2016. In January 2016 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective February 1, 2016. The MPSC further ordered, however, that due to the significant change in natural gas price forecasts since Entergy Mississippi’s filing in November 2015, Entergy Mississippi shall file a revised fuel factor with the MPSC no later than February 1, 2016. Pursuant to that order, Entergy Mississippi submitted a revised fuel factor. Additionally, because Entergy Mississippi’s projected over-recovery balance for the period ending January 31, 2017 was $68 million, in February 2016, Entergy Mississippi filed for another interim adjustment to the energy cost factor effective April 2016 to flow through to customers the projected over-recovery balance over a six-month period. That interim adjustment was approved by the MPSC in February 2016 effective for April 2016 bills.

Entergy Texas

As discussed in the Form 10-K, 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. In January 2016 the PUCT issued its order affirming the ALJ’s recommendation, and Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the PUCT’s decision, which the PUCT denied. In March 2016, Entergy Texas filed a complaint in Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas and a petition in the Travis County (State) District Court appealing the PUCT’s decision. Both appeals are pending, but the appeals do not stay the PUCT’s decision. The federal appeal is scheduled to be heard in December 2016. In April 2016, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application to refund to customers approximately $56.2 million. The refund resulted from (i) $41.8 million of fuel cost recovery over-collections through February 2016, (ii) the $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments, discussed above, that Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs, and (iii) $3.5 million in bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received related to 2006-2008 production costs. In June 2016, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed settlement agreement that added additional over-recovered fuel costs for the months of March and April 2016. The settlement resulted in a $68 million refund. The ALJ approved the refund on an interim basis to be made to most customers over a four-month period beginning with the first billing cycle of July 2016. In July 2016 the PUCT issued an order approving the interim refund.

In July 2016, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2016. Under a recent PUCT rule change, a fuel reconciliation is required to be filed at least once every three years and outside of a base rate case filing. During the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas incurred approximately $1.77 billion in Texas jurisdictional eligible fuel and purchased power expenses, net of certain revenues credited to such expenses and other adjustments. Entergy Texas estimates an over-recovery balance of approximately $19.3 million, including interest, which Entergy Texas is requesting authority to carry over as the beginning balance for the subsequent reconciliation period beginning Apri1 2016. Entergy Texas also notes, however, that the $19.3 million over collection is currently being refunded to customers as a portion of the interim fuel refund beginning with the first billing cycle of July 2016, discussed above. Entergy Texas also is requesting a prudence finding for each of the fuel-related contracts and arrangements entered into or modified during the reconciliation period that have not be reviewed by the PUCT in a prior proceeding. The PUCT has one year to issue a final order in this proceeding.

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

2015 Rate Case

In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notified the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requested a retail rate increase of$268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requested a 10.2% return on common equity. In September 2015 the 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. In December 2015, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and certain of the intervenors in the rate case filed with the APSC a joint motion for approval of a settlement of the case that proposed a retail rate increase of approximately $225 million with a net increase in revenue of approximately $133 million; an authorized return on common equity of 9.75%; and a formula rate plan tariff that provides a +/- 50 basis point band around the 9.75% allowed return on common equity. A significant portion of the rate increase is related to Entergy Arkansas’s acquisition in March 2016 of Union Power Station Power Block 2 for a base purchase price of $237 million, subject to closing adjustments. The settlement agreement also provided for amortization over a 10-year period of $7.7 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO post-Fukushima compliance and $9.9 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO flood barrier compliance. A settlement hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that would reduce the retail rate increase proposed in the settlement by $5 million. The settling parties agreed to the APSC modifications in February 2016. The new rates were effective February 24, 2016 and began billing with the first billing cycle of April 2016. In March 2016, Entergy Arkansas made a compliance filing regarding the new rates that included an interim base rate adjustment surcharge, effective with the first billing cycle of April 2016, to recover the incremental revenue requirement for the period February 24, 2016 through March 31, 2016. The interim base rate adjustment surcharge will recover a total of $21.1 million over the nine-month period from April 2016 through December 2016.

2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2016 Entergy Arkansas formula rate plan filing showing Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the twelve months ended December 31, 2017 test year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing requests a $68 million rate increase to achieve Entergy Arkansas’s target earned return on common equity of 9.75%. Entergy Arkansas requested an order approving its proposed formula rate plan adjustment by December 9, 2016. If a final order is not issued by this date, the proposed formula rate plan adjustment will become effective December 30, 2016, subject to refund.

Filings with the LPSC

Retail Rates - Electric

2015 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2015 calendar year operations. The evaluation report reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.07%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following other adjustments, however, are required under the formula rate plan: an increase in the legacy Entergy Louisiana additional capacity mechanism of $14.2 million; a separate increase in legacy Entergy Louisiana revenue of $10 million primarily to reflect the effects of the termination of the System Agreement; an increase in the legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana additional capacity mechanism of $0.5 million; a decrease in legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana revenue of $58.7 million primarily to reflect the effects of the termination of the System Agreement; and an increase of $11 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism. Rates are scheduled to be implemented with the first billing cycle of September 2016, subject to refund.

Ninemile 6

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a Ninemile 6 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. Testimony filed by LPSC staff generally supports the prudence of the management of the project and recovery of the costs incurred to complete the project. The LPSC staff had questioned the warranty coverage for one element of the project. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint motion to suspend the procedural schedule pending the filing of an uncontested joint stipulated settlement.

Union Power Station

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2015 the LPSC approved a settlement authorizing the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana acquired Power Blocks 3 and 4 of Union Power Station for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $474 million and implemented rates to collect the estimated first-year revenue requirement with the first billing cycle of March 2016.

As a term of the LPSC-approved settlement authorizing the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station, Entergy Louisiana agreed to make a filing with the LPSC to review its decisions to deactivate Ninemile 3 and Willow Glen 2 and 4 and its decision to retire Little Gypsy 1.  In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana made its compliance filing with the LPSC. Entergy Louisiana, LPSC staff, and intervenors participated in a technical conference in March 2016 where Entergy Louisiana presented information on its deactivation/retirement decisions for these four units in addition to information on the current deactivation decisions for the ten-year planning horizon. Parties have requested further proceedings on the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4.  This matter is pending before an ALJ, and a hearing has been scheduled in March 2017 to determine, under applicable law, whether Willow Glen 2 and 4 units should be returned to service.

Retail Rates - Gas

In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2015. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 10.22%, which is within the authorized bandwidth, therefore requiring no change in rates. In March 2016 the LPSC staff issued its report stating that the 2015 gas rate stabilization plan filing is in compliance with the exception of several issues that require additional information, explanation, or clarification for which the LPSC staff has reserved the right to further review. In July 2016 the parties to the proceeding filed an unopposed joint report and motion for entry of order accepting report that indicates no outstanding issues remain in the filing. Absent approval of an extension by the LPSC, test year 2015 is the final year under the current gas rate stabilization plan. In February 2016, however, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the term of the gas rate stabilization plan for an additional three-year term. A procedural schedule has been established, including a hearing in November 2016.

Filings with the MPSC

In March 2016, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2016 test year filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s projected earned return for the 2016 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing showed a $32.6 million rate increase was necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 9.96%, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. In June 2016 the MPSC approved Entergy Mississippi’s joint stipulation with the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff. The joint stipulation provided for a total revenue increase of $23.7 million. The revenue increase includes a $19.4 million increase through the formula rate plan, resulting in a return on common equity point of adjustment of 10.07%. The revenue increase also includes $4.3 million in incremental ad valorem tax expenses to be collected through an updated ad valorem tax adjustment rider. The revenue increase and ad valorem tax adjustment rider were effective with the July 2016 bills.

Filings with the City Council

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2015 the City Council authorized expansion of the terms of the purchased power and capacity acquisition cost recovery rider to recover the non-fuel purchased power expense from Ninemile 6, the revenue requirement associated with the purchase of Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station, and a credit to customers of $400 thousand monthly beginning June 2016 in recognition of the decrease in other operation and maintenance expenses that would result with the deactivation of Michoud Units 2 and 3. In March 2016, Entergy New Orleans purchased Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station for approximately $237 million and initiated recovery of these costs with March 2016 bills. In July 2016, Entergy New Orleans and the City Council Utility Committee agreed to a temporary increase in the credit to customers to a total of $1.4 million monthly for August 2016 through December 2016.

Internal Restructuring

In July 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a restructuring which would result in the transfer of substantially all of the assets and operations of Entergy New Orleans to a new entity, which would ultimately be held by an existing Entergy subsidiary holding company. The restructuring is subject to regulatory review and approval of the City Council and the FERC. If the application is approved by the City Council in 2016, Entergy New Orleans has proposed to credit retail customers $5 million in each of the years 2016 and 2017. The filing with the FERC has not yet been made, but if the restructuring is approved by the FERC by December 31, 2018, Entergy New Orleans has proposed to credit retail customers $5 million in each of the years 2018, 2019, and 2020.  If City Council and FERC approvals are obtained, Entergy New Orleans expects the restructuring will be consummated by December 31, 2017.

It is currently contemplated that Entergy New Orleans would undertake a multi-step restructuring, which would include the following:

• Entergy New Orleans would redeem its outstanding preferred stock at a price of approximately $21 million, which includes an expected call premium of approximately $819,000, plus any accumulated and unpaid dividends.

• Entergy New Orleans would convert from a Louisiana corporation to a Texas corporation.

• Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy New Orleans will allocate substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy New Orleans Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy New Orleans Power), and Entergy New Orleans Power will assume substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy New Orleans, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy New Orleans will remain in existence and hold the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power.

• Entergy New Orleans will contribute the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy New Orleans Power will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

• Entergy New Orleans will change its name to Entergy New Orleans Holdings, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans Power will then change its name to Entergy New Orleans, LLC.

Upon the completion of the restructuring, Entergy New Orleans, LLC will hold substantially all of the assets, and will have assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy New Orleans. Entergy New Orleans may modify or supplement the steps to be taken to effectuate the restructuring.

Filings with the PUCT

2011 Rate Case

See the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Texas’s 2011 rate case. As discussed in the Form 10-K, several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced in the Form 10-K, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. In April 2016 the Third Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the District Court’s decision on all points. Entergy Texas petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. That petition is pending.

Other Filings

In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony was filed in November 2015, with the PUCT staff and other parties proposing various disallowances involving, among other things, MISO charges, vegetation management costs, and bad debt expenses that would reduce the requested increase by approximately $2 million. In addition to those recommended disallowances, a number of parties recommended that Entergy Texas’s request be reduced by an additional $3.4 million to account for load growth since base rates were last set. A hearing on the merits was held in December 2015. In February 2016 a State Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the PUCT disallow approximately $2 million from Entergy Texas’s $13 million request, but recommending that the PUCT not accept the load growth offset. In April 2016 the PUCT voted to allow Entergy Texas’s TCRF rates to become effective as of April 14, 2016 when those rates are finally approved, but did not otherwise address the proposal for decision. In May 2016 the PUCT deferred final consideration of Entergy Texas’s TCRF application and opened the record to consider additional evidence to be provided by Entergy Texas and potentially other parties regarding the rate-making treatment of spare transmission-level transformers that are transferred among the Utility operating companies.  In June 2016 the PUCT indicated that it would take up in a future rulemaking project the issue of whether a load growth adjustment should apply to a TCRF. In July 2016 the PUCT issued an order generally accepting the proposal for decision but declining to adjust the TCRF baseline in two instances as recommended by the ALJ, which results in a total annual allowance of approximately $10.5 million. The PUCT also ordered its staff and Entergy Texas to track all spare autotransformer transfers going forward so that it could address the appropriate accounting treatment and prudence of such transfers in Entergy Texas’s next base rate case.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

Consolidated 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Rate Filing Proceedings

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2014 the FERC consolidated the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. 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. 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 occurred in November 2015, and an initial decision from the ALJ was issued in July 2016. In the initial decision, the ALJ generally agreed with Entergy’s bandwidth calculations with one exception on the accounting related to the Waterford 3 sale/leaseback. Briefs are due in August and September 2016.

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. In March 2016, Entergy Services filed a settlement at the FERC resolving the 2015 rate filing. In the settlement, the parties did not dispute the 2015 rates as calculated with no payments or receipts. Pursuant to the settlement, the 2015 rates are subject to a recalculation and compliance filing upon resolution of other ongoing bandwidth-related proceedings. The settlement is pending at the FERC.

2016 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2015 Production Costs

In May 2016, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2016 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing showed that no payments and receipts were required in 2016 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2015 production costs. The LPSC and City Council intervened in the proceeding.

Interruptible Load Proceedings

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the interruptible load proceeding. In April 2016 the FERC issued an order on remand that addressed the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding. The order on remand affirmed the FERC’s denial of refunds for the 15-month refund effective period. The FERC explained and clarified its policies regarding refunds and concluded that the evidence in the record demonstrated that the relevant equitable factors favored not requiring refunds in this case. The FERC also noted that, under Section 206(c) of the Federal Power Act, in a Section 206 proceeding involving two or more electric utility companies of a registered holding company system, the FERC may order refunds only if it determines the refunds would not cause the registered holding company to experience any reduction in revenues resulting from an inability of an electric utility company in the system to recover the resulting increase in costs. The FERC stated it was not able to find that the Entergy system would not experience a reduction in revenues if refunds were awarded in this proceeding, which further supported the denial of refunds. In May 2016 the LPSC filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceedings

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceeding initiated at the FERC by the LPSC in June 2009 in which the LPSC initially requested that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocate the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibits sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies.  In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing the requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denies Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirms FERC’s earlier rulings that Entergy’s original methodology for allocating energy costs to the opportunity sales was incorrect and, as a result, Entergy Arkansas must make payments to the other Utility operating companies to put them in the same position that they would have been in absent the incorrect allocation. The FERC clarified that interest should be included with the payments. The second order affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the rulings in the ALJ’s initial decision regarding the methodology that should be used to calculate the payments Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The FERC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that a full re-run of intra-system bills should be performed, but required that methodology be modified so that the sales have the same priority for purposes of energy allocation as joint account sales. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that adjustments to other System Agreement service schedules and excess bandwidth payments should not be taken into account when calculating the payments to be made by Entergy Arkansas. The FERC held that such adjustments and excess bandwidth payments should be taken into account, but ordered further proceedings before an ALJ to address whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology.

The effect of the FERC’s decisions, if upheld, is that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. As part of the further proceedings required by the FERC, Entergy will re-run intra-system bills for a ten-year period (2000-2009) to quantify the effects of the FERC's rulings. The ALJ will issue an initial decision and FERC will issue an order reviewing that decision. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing that initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order. Because further proceedings are required, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case, however, in the first quarter 2016 Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retail and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Therefore Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory asset of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs.

In May 2016 a procedural schedule was established with a hearing in May 2017 and an initial decision expected in August 2017. Also in May 2016, Entergy Services filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the requests for rehearing filed in July 2012. Entergy Services also filed a request for clarification and/or rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The APSC and the LPSC also filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order.

Storm Cost Recovery

Entergy Mississippi

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in February 2015, Entergy Mississippi provided notice to the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff that the storm damage provision would be set to zero effective with the March 2015 billing cycle as a result of Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance exceeding $15 million as of January 31, 2015, but would return to its current level when the storm damage provision balance becomes less than $10 million. As of April 30, 2016, Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance was less than $10 million, therefore Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with June 2016 bills.

Entergy New Orleans [Member]

Public Utilities Disclosure [Text Block]

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 Arkansas

Production Cost Allocation Rider

In May 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider, which reflected recovery of the production cost allocation rider true-up adjustment of the 2014 and 2015 unrecovered retail balance in the amount of $1.9 million. Additionally, the redetermined rates reflect the recovery of a $1.9 million System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment resulting from a compliance filing pursuant to the FERC’s December 2015 order related to test year 2009 production costs. The rates for the 2016 production cost allocation rider update became effective with the first billing cycle of July 2016, and rates will be effective through June 2017.

Entergy Louisiana

In April 2010 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 through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009.  The LPSC staff issued its audit report in January 2013.  The LPSC staff recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $1.9 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $1 million from Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates.  The recommended refund was made by Entergy Louisiana in May 2013 in the form of a credit to customers through its fuel adjustment clause filing. Two parties intervened in the proceeding. A procedural schedule was established for the identification of issues by the intervenors and for Entergy Louisiana to submit comments regarding the LPSC staff report and any issues raised by intervenors. One intervenor sought further proceedings regarding certain issues it raised in its comments on the LPSC staff report. Entergy Louisiana filed responses to both the LPSC staff report and the issues raised by the intervenor. After conducting additional discovery, in April 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its supplemental audit report, which concluded that Entergy Louisiana was not imprudent on the issues raised by the intervenor. A procedural schedule has been established for this proceeding, including an evidentiary hearing in November 2016.

In December 2011 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate a proceeding to audit the fuel adjustment clause filings of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and its affiliates.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period 2005 through 2009.  In March 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its audit report. In its report, the LPSC staff consultant recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $8.6 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $12.7 millionfrom Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates. Entergy Louisiana has recorded a provision for the estimated outcome of this proceeding. A procedural schedule has been established for this proceeding, including a hearing in December 2016.

In June 2016 the LPSC staff provided notice of an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings and purchased gas adjustment clause filings. In recognition of the business combination that occurred in 2015, the audit notice was issued to Entergy Louisiana and will also include a review of charges to legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers prior to the business combination. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment and purchased gas adjustment mechanisms for the period from 2012 through 2015. Discovery has not commenced.

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. In November 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included a projected over-recovery balance of $48 million projected through January 31, 2016. In January 2016 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective February 1, 2016. The MPSC further ordered, however, that due to the significant change in natural gas price forecasts since Entergy Mississippi’s filing in November 2015, Entergy Mississippi shall file a revised fuel factor with the MPSC no later than February 1, 2016. Pursuant to that order, Entergy Mississippi submitted a revised fuel factor. Additionally, because Entergy Mississippi’s projected over-recovery balance for the period ending January 31, 2017 was $68 million, in February 2016, Entergy Mississippi filed for another interim adjustment to the energy cost factor effective April 2016 to flow through to customers the projected over-recovery balance over a six-month period. That interim adjustment was approved by the MPSC in February 2016 effective for April 2016 bills.

Entergy Texas

As discussed in the Form 10-K, 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. In January 2016 the PUCT issued its order affirming the ALJ’s recommendation, and Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the PUCT’s decision, which the PUCT denied. In March 2016, Entergy Texas filed a complaint in Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas and a petition in the Travis County (State) District Court appealing the PUCT’s decision. Both appeals are pending, but the appeals do not stay the PUCT’s decision. The federal appeal is scheduled to be heard in December 2016. In April 2016, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application to refund to customers approximately $56.2 million. The refund resulted from (i) $41.8 million of fuel cost recovery over-collections through February 2016, (ii) the $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments, discussed above, that Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs, and (iii) $3.5 million in bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received related to 2006-2008 production costs. In June 2016, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed settlement agreement that added additional over-recovered fuel costs for the months of March and April 2016. The settlement resulted in a $68 million refund. The ALJ approved the refund on an interim basis to be made to most customers over a four-month period beginning with the first billing cycle of July 2016. In July 2016 the PUCT issued an order approving the interim refund.

In July 2016, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2016. Under a recent PUCT rule change, a fuel reconciliation is required to be filed at least once every three years and outside of a base rate case filing. During the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas incurred approximately $1.77 billion in Texas jurisdictional eligible fuel and purchased power expenses, net of certain revenues credited to such expenses and other adjustments. Entergy Texas estimates an over-recovery balance of approximately $19.3 million, including interest, which Entergy Texas is requesting authority to carry over as the beginning balance for the subsequent reconciliation period beginning Apri1 2016. Entergy Texas also notes, however, that the $19.3 million over collection is currently being refunded to customers as a portion of the interim fuel refund beginning with the first billing cycle of July 2016, discussed above. Entergy Texas also is requesting a prudence finding for each of the fuel-related contracts and arrangements entered into or modified during the reconciliation period that have not be reviewed by the PUCT in a prior proceeding. The PUCT has one year to issue a final order in this proceeding.

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

2015 Rate Case

In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notified the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requested a retail rate increase of$268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requested a 10.2% return on common equity. In September 2015 the 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. In December 2015, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and certain of the intervenors in the rate case filed with the APSC a joint motion for approval of a settlement of the case that proposed a retail rate increase of approximately $225 million with a net increase in revenue of approximately $133 million; an authorized return on common equity of 9.75%; and a formula rate plan tariff that provides a +/- 50 basis point band around the 9.75% allowed return on common equity. A significant portion of the rate increase is related to Entergy Arkansas’s acquisition in March 2016 of Union Power Station Power Block 2 for a base purchase price of $237 million, subject to closing adjustments. The settlement agreement also provided for amortization over a 10-year period of $7.7 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO post-Fukushima compliance and $9.9 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO flood barrier compliance. A settlement hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that would reduce the retail rate increase proposed in the settlement by $5 million. The settling parties agreed to the APSC modifications in February 2016. The new rates were effective February 24, 2016 and began billing with the first billing cycle of April 2016. In March 2016, Entergy Arkansas made a compliance filing regarding the new rates that included an interim base rate adjustment surcharge, effective with the first billing cycle of April 2016, to recover the incremental revenue requirement for the period February 24, 2016 through March 31, 2016. The interim base rate adjustment surcharge will recover a total of $21.1 million over the nine-month period from April 2016 through December 2016.

2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2016 Entergy Arkansas formula rate plan filing showing Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the twelve months ended December 31, 2017 test year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing requests a $68 million rate increase to achieve Entergy Arkansas’s target earned return on common equity of 9.75%. Entergy Arkansas requested an order approving its proposed formula rate plan adjustment by December 9, 2016. If a final order is not issued by this date, the proposed formula rate plan adjustment will become effective December 30, 2016, subject to refund.

Filings with the LPSC

Retail Rates - Electric

2015 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2015 calendar year operations. The evaluation report reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.07%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following other adjustments, however, are required under the formula rate plan: an increase in the legacy Entergy Louisiana additional capacity mechanism of $14.2 million; a separate increase in legacy Entergy Louisiana revenue of $10 million primarily to reflect the effects of the termination of the System Agreement; an increase in the legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana additional capacity mechanism of $0.5 million; a decrease in legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana revenue of $58.7 million primarily to reflect the effects of the termination of the System Agreement; and an increase of $11 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism. Rates are scheduled to be implemented with the first billing cycle of September 2016, subject to refund.

Ninemile 6

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a Ninemile 6 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. Testimony filed by LPSC staff generally supports the prudence of the management of the project and recovery of the costs incurred to complete the project. The LPSC staff had questioned the warranty coverage for one element of the project. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint motion to suspend the procedural schedule pending the filing of an uncontested joint stipulated settlement.

Union Power Station

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2015 the LPSC approved a settlement authorizing the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana acquired Power Blocks 3 and 4 of Union Power Station for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $474 million and implemented rates to collect the estimated first-year revenue requirement with the first billing cycle of March 2016.

As a term of the LPSC-approved settlement authorizing the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station, Entergy Louisiana agreed to make a filing with the LPSC to review its decisions to deactivate Ninemile 3 and Willow Glen 2 and 4 and its decision to retire Little Gypsy 1.  In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana made its compliance filing with the LPSC. Entergy Louisiana, LPSC staff, and intervenors participated in a technical conference in March 2016 where Entergy Louisiana presented information on its deactivation/retirement decisions for these four units in addition to information on the current deactivation decisions for the ten-year planning horizon. Parties have requested further proceedings on the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4.  This matter is pending before an ALJ, and a hearing has been scheduled in March 2017 to determine, under applicable law, whether Willow Glen 2 and 4 units should be returned to service.

Retail Rates - Gas

In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2015. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 10.22%, which is within the authorized bandwidth, therefore requiring no change in rates. In March 2016 the LPSC staff issued its report stating that the 2015 gas rate stabilization plan filing is in compliance with the exception of several issues that require additional information, explanation, or clarification for which the LPSC staff has reserved the right to further review. In July 2016 the parties to the proceeding filed an unopposed joint report and motion for entry of order accepting report that indicates no outstanding issues remain in the filing. Absent approval of an extension by the LPSC, test year 2015 is the final year under the current gas rate stabilization plan. In February 2016, however, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the term of the gas rate stabilization plan for an additional three-year term. A procedural schedule has been established, including a hearing in November 2016.

Filings with the MPSC

In March 2016, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2016 test year filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s projected earned return for the 2016 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing showed a $32.6 million rate increase was necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 9.96%, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. In June 2016 the MPSC approved Entergy Mississippi’s joint stipulation with the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff. The joint stipulation provided for a total revenue increase of $23.7 million. The revenue increase includes a $19.4 million increase through the formula rate plan, resulting in a return on common equity point of adjustment of 10.07%. The revenue increase also includes $4.3 million in incremental ad valorem tax expenses to be collected through an updated ad valorem tax adjustment rider. The revenue increase and ad valorem tax adjustment rider were effective with the July 2016 bills.

Filings with the City Council

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2015 the City Council authorized expansion of the terms of the purchased power and capacity acquisition cost recovery rider to recover the non-fuel purchased power expense from Ninemile 6, the revenue requirement associated with the purchase of Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station, and a credit to customers of $400 thousand monthly beginning June 2016 in recognition of the decrease in other operation and maintenance expenses that would result with the deactivation of Michoud Units 2 and 3. In March 2016, Entergy New Orleans purchased Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station for approximately $237 million and initiated recovery of these costs with March 2016 bills. In July 2016, Entergy New Orleans and the City Council Utility Committee agreed to a temporary increase in the credit to customers to a total of $1.4 million monthly for August 2016 through December 2016.

Internal Restructuring

In July 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a restructuring which would result in the transfer of substantially all of the assets and operations of Entergy New Orleans to a new entity, which would ultimately be held by an existing Entergy subsidiary holding company. The restructuring is subject to regulatory review and approval of the City Council and the FERC. If the application is approved by the City Council in 2016, Entergy New Orleans has proposed to credit retail customers $5 million in each of the years 2016 and 2017. The filing with the FERC has not yet been made, but if the restructuring is approved by the FERC by December 31, 2018, Entergy New Orleans has proposed to credit retail customers $5 million in each of the years 2018, 2019, and 2020.  If City Council and FERC approvals are obtained, Entergy New Orleans expects the restructuring will be consummated by December 31, 2017.

It is currently contemplated that Entergy New Orleans would undertake a multi-step restructuring, which would include the following:

• Entergy New Orleans would redeem its outstanding preferred stock at a price of approximately $21 million, which includes an expected call premium of approximately $819,000, plus any accumulated and unpaid dividends.

• Entergy New Orleans would convert from a Louisiana corporation to a Texas corporation.

• Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy New Orleans will allocate substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy New Orleans Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy New Orleans Power), and Entergy New Orleans Power will assume substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy New Orleans, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy New Orleans will remain in existence and hold the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power.

• Entergy New Orleans will contribute the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy New Orleans Power will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

• Entergy New Orleans will change its name to Entergy New Orleans Holdings, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans Power will then change its name to Entergy New Orleans, LLC.

Upon the completion of the restructuring, Entergy New Orleans, LLC will hold substantially all of the assets, and will have assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy New Orleans. Entergy New Orleans may modify or supplement the steps to be taken to effectuate the restructuring.

Filings with the PUCT

2011 Rate Case

See the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Texas’s 2011 rate case. As discussed in the Form 10-K, several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced in the Form 10-K, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. In April 2016 the Third Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the District Court’s decision on all points. Entergy Texas petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. That petition is pending.

Other Filings

In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony was filed in November 2015, with the PUCT staff and other parties proposing various disallowances involving, among other things, MISO charges, vegetation management costs, and bad debt expenses that would reduce the requested increase by approximately $2 million. In addition to those recommended disallowances, a number of parties recommended that Entergy Texas’s request be reduced by an additional $3.4 million to account for load growth since base rates were last set. A hearing on the merits was held in December 2015. In February 2016 a State Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the PUCT disallow approximately $2 million from Entergy Texas’s $13 million request, but recommending that the PUCT not accept the load growth offset. In April 2016 the PUCT voted to allow Entergy Texas’s TCRF rates to become effective as of April 14, 2016 when those rates are finally approved, but did not otherwise address the proposal for decision. In May 2016 the PUCT deferred final consideration of Entergy Texas’s TCRF application and opened the record to consider additional evidence to be provided by Entergy Texas and potentially other parties regarding the rate-making treatment of spare transmission-level transformers that are transferred among the Utility operating companies.  In June 2016 the PUCT indicated that it would take up in a future rulemaking project the issue of whether a load growth adjustment should apply to a TCRF. In July 2016 the PUCT issued an order generally accepting the proposal for decision but declining to adjust the TCRF baseline in two instances as recommended by the ALJ, which results in a total annual allowance of approximately $10.5 million. The PUCT also ordered its staff and Entergy Texas to track all spare autotransformer transfers going forward so that it could address the appropriate accounting treatment and prudence of such transfers in Entergy Texas’s next base rate case.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

Consolidated 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Rate Filing Proceedings

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2014 the FERC consolidated the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. 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. 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 occurred in November 2015, and an initial decision from the ALJ was issued in July 2016. In the initial decision, the ALJ generally agreed with Entergy’s bandwidth calculations with one exception on the accounting related to the Waterford 3 sale/leaseback. Briefs are due in August and September 2016.

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. In March 2016, Entergy Services filed a settlement at the FERC resolving the 2015 rate filing. In the settlement, the parties did not dispute the 2015 rates as calculated with no payments or receipts. Pursuant to the settlement, the 2015 rates are subject to a recalculation and compliance filing upon resolution of other ongoing bandwidth-related proceedings. The settlement is pending at the FERC.

2016 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2015 Production Costs

In May 2016, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2016 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing showed that no payments and receipts were required in 2016 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2015 production costs. The LPSC and City Council intervened in the proceeding.

Interruptible Load Proceedings

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the interruptible load proceeding. In April 2016 the FERC issued an order on remand that addressed the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding. The order on remand affirmed the FERC’s denial of refunds for the 15-month refund effective period. The FERC explained and clarified its policies regarding refunds and concluded that the evidence in the record demonstrated that the relevant equitable factors favored not requiring refunds in this case. The FERC also noted that, under Section 206(c) of the Federal Power Act, in a Section 206 proceeding involving two or more electric utility companies of a registered holding company system, the FERC may order refunds only if it determines the refunds would not cause the registered holding company to experience any reduction in revenues resulting from an inability of an electric utility company in the system to recover the resulting increase in costs. The FERC stated it was not able to find that the Entergy system would not experience a reduction in revenues if refunds were awarded in this proceeding, which further supported the denial of refunds. In May 2016 the LPSC filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceedings

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceeding initiated at the FERC by the LPSC in June 2009 in which the LPSC initially requested that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocate the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibits sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies.  In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing the requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denies Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirms FERC’s earlier rulings that Entergy’s original methodology for allocating energy costs to the opportunity sales was incorrect and, as a result, Entergy Arkansas must make payments to the other Utility operating companies to put them in the same position that they would have been in absent the incorrect allocation. The FERC clarified that interest should be included with the payments. The second order affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the rulings in the ALJ’s initial decision regarding the methodology that should be used to calculate the payments Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The FERC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that a full re-run of intra-system bills should be performed, but required that methodology be modified so that the sales have the same priority for purposes of energy allocation as joint account sales. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that adjustments to other System Agreement service schedules and excess bandwidth payments should not be taken into account when calculating the payments to be made by Entergy Arkansas. The FERC held that such adjustments and excess bandwidth payments should be taken into account, but ordered further proceedings before an ALJ to address whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology.

The effect of the FERC’s decisions, if upheld, is that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. As part of the further proceedings required by the FERC, Entergy will re-run intra-system bills for a ten-year period (2000-2009) to quantify the effects of the FERC's rulings. The ALJ will issue an initial decision and FERC will issue an order reviewing that decision. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing that initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order. Because further proceedings are required, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case, however, in the first quarter 2016 Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retail and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Therefore Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory asset of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs.

In May 2016 a procedural schedule was established with a hearing in May 2017 and an initial decision expected in August 2017. Also in May 2016, Entergy Services filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the requests for rehearing filed in July 2012. Entergy Services also filed a request for clarification and/or rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The APSC and the LPSC also filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order.

Storm Cost Recovery

Entergy Mississippi

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in February 2015, Entergy Mississippi provided notice to the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff that the storm damage provision would be set to zero effective with the March 2015 billing cycle as a result of Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance exceeding $15 million as of January 31, 2015, but would return to its current level when the storm damage provision balance becomes less than $10 million. As of April 30, 2016, Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance was less than $10 million, therefore Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with June 2016 bills.

Entergy Texas [Member]

Public Utilities Disclosure [Text Block]

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 Arkansas

Production Cost Allocation Rider

In May 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider, which reflected recovery of the production cost allocation rider true-up adjustment of the 2014 and 2015 unrecovered retail balance in the amount of $1.9 million. Additionally, the redetermined rates reflect the recovery of a $1.9 million System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment resulting from a compliance filing pursuant to the FERC’s December 2015 order related to test year 2009 production costs. The rates for the 2016 production cost allocation rider update became effective with the first billing cycle of July 2016, and rates will be effective through June 2017.

Entergy Louisiana

In April 2010 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 through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009.  The LPSC staff issued its audit report in January 2013.  The LPSC staff recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $1.9 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $1 million from Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates.  The recommended refund was made by Entergy Louisiana in May 2013 in the form of a credit to customers through its fuel adjustment clause filing. Two parties intervened in the proceeding. A procedural schedule was established for the identification of issues by the intervenors and for Entergy Louisiana to submit comments regarding the LPSC staff report and any issues raised by intervenors. One intervenor sought further proceedings regarding certain issues it raised in its comments on the LPSC staff report. Entergy Louisiana filed responses to both the LPSC staff report and the issues raised by the intervenor. After conducting additional discovery, in April 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its supplemental audit report, which concluded that Entergy Louisiana was not imprudent on the issues raised by the intervenor. A procedural schedule has been established for this proceeding, including an evidentiary hearing in November 2016.

In December 2011 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate a proceeding to audit the fuel adjustment clause filings of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and its affiliates.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period 2005 through 2009.  In March 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its audit report. In its report, the LPSC staff consultant recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $8.6 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $12.7 millionfrom Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates. Entergy Louisiana has recorded a provision for the estimated outcome of this proceeding. A procedural schedule has been established for this proceeding, including a hearing in December 2016.

In June 2016 the LPSC staff provided notice of an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings and purchased gas adjustment clause filings. In recognition of the business combination that occurred in 2015, the audit notice was issued to Entergy Louisiana and will also include a review of charges to legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers prior to the business combination. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment and purchased gas adjustment mechanisms for the period from 2012 through 2015. Discovery has not commenced.

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. In November 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included a projected over-recovery balance of $48 million projected through January 31, 2016. In January 2016 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective February 1, 2016. The MPSC further ordered, however, that due to the significant change in natural gas price forecasts since Entergy Mississippi’s filing in November 2015, Entergy Mississippi shall file a revised fuel factor with the MPSC no later than February 1, 2016. Pursuant to that order, Entergy Mississippi submitted a revised fuel factor. Additionally, because Entergy Mississippi’s projected over-recovery balance for the period ending January 31, 2017 was $68 million, in February 2016, Entergy Mississippi filed for another interim adjustment to the energy cost factor effective April 2016 to flow through to customers the projected over-recovery balance over a six-month period. That interim adjustment was approved by the MPSC in February 2016 effective for April 2016 bills.

Entergy Texas

As discussed in the Form 10-K, 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. In January 2016 the PUCT issued its order affirming the ALJ’s recommendation, and Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the PUCT’s decision, which the PUCT denied. In March 2016, Entergy Texas filed a complaint in Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas and a petition in the Travis County (State) District Court appealing the PUCT’s decision. Both appeals are pending, but the appeals do not stay the PUCT’s decision. The federal appeal is scheduled to be heard in December 2016. In April 2016, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application to refund to customers approximately $56.2 million. The refund resulted from (i) $41.8 million of fuel cost recovery over-collections through February 2016, (ii) the $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments, discussed above, that Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs, and (iii) $3.5 million in bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received related to 2006-2008 production costs. In June 2016, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed settlement agreement that added additional over-recovered fuel costs for the months of March and April 2016. The settlement resulted in a $68 million refund. The ALJ approved the refund on an interim basis to be made to most customers over a four-month period beginning with the first billing cycle of July 2016. In July 2016 the PUCT issued an order approving the interim refund.

In July 2016, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2016. Under a recent PUCT rule change, a fuel reconciliation is required to be filed at least once every three years and outside of a base rate case filing. During the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas incurred approximately $1.77 billion in Texas jurisdictional eligible fuel and purchased power expenses, net of certain revenues credited to such expenses and other adjustments. Entergy Texas estimates an over-recovery balance of approximately $19.3 million, including interest, which Entergy Texas is requesting authority to carry over as the beginning balance for the subsequent reconciliation period beginning Apri1 2016. Entergy Texas also notes, however, that the $19.3 million over collection is currently being refunded to customers as a portion of the interim fuel refund beginning with the first billing cycle of July 2016, discussed above. Entergy Texas also is requesting a prudence finding for each of the fuel-related contracts and arrangements entered into or modified during the reconciliation period that have not be reviewed by the PUCT in a prior proceeding. The PUCT has one year to issue a final order in this proceeding.

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

2015 Rate Case

In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notified the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requested a retail rate increase of$268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requested a 10.2% return on common equity. In September 2015 the 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. In December 2015, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and certain of the intervenors in the rate case filed with the APSC a joint motion for approval of a settlement of the case that proposed a retail rate increase of approximately $225 million with a net increase in revenue of approximately $133 million; an authorized return on common equity of 9.75%; and a formula rate plan tariff that provides a +/- 50 basis point band around the 9.75% allowed return on common equity. A significant portion of the rate increase is related to Entergy Arkansas’s acquisition in March 2016 of Union Power Station Power Block 2 for a base purchase price of $237 million, subject to closing adjustments. The settlement agreement also provided for amortization over a 10-year period of $7.7 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO post-Fukushima compliance and $9.9 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO flood barrier compliance. A settlement hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that would reduce the retail rate increase proposed in the settlement by $5 million. The settling parties agreed to the APSC modifications in February 2016. The new rates were effective February 24, 2016 and began billing with the first billing cycle of April 2016. In March 2016, Entergy Arkansas made a compliance filing regarding the new rates that included an interim base rate adjustment surcharge, effective with the first billing cycle of April 2016, to recover the incremental revenue requirement for the period February 24, 2016 through March 31, 2016. The interim base rate adjustment surcharge will recover a total of $21.1 million over the nine-month period from April 2016 through December 2016.

2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2016 Entergy Arkansas formula rate plan filing showing Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the twelve months ended December 31, 2017 test year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing requests a $68 million rate increase to achieve Entergy Arkansas’s target earned return on common equity of 9.75%. Entergy Arkansas requested an order approving its proposed formula rate plan adjustment by December 9, 2016. If a final order is not issued by this date, the proposed formula rate plan adjustment will become effective December 30, 2016, subject to refund.

Filings with the LPSC

Retail Rates - Electric

2015 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2015 calendar year operations. The evaluation report reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.07%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following other adjustments, however, are required under the formula rate plan: an increase in the legacy Entergy Louisiana additional capacity mechanism of $14.2 million; a separate increase in legacy Entergy Louisiana revenue of $10 million primarily to reflect the effects of the termination of the System Agreement; an increase in the legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana additional capacity mechanism of $0.5 million; a decrease in legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana revenue of $58.7 million primarily to reflect the effects of the termination of the System Agreement; and an increase of $11 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism. Rates are scheduled to be implemented with the first billing cycle of September 2016, subject to refund.

Ninemile 6

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a Ninemile 6 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. Testimony filed by LPSC staff generally supports the prudence of the management of the project and recovery of the costs incurred to complete the project. The LPSC staff had questioned the warranty coverage for one element of the project. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint motion to suspend the procedural schedule pending the filing of an uncontested joint stipulated settlement.

Union Power Station

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2015 the LPSC approved a settlement authorizing the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana acquired Power Blocks 3 and 4 of Union Power Station for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $474 million and implemented rates to collect the estimated first-year revenue requirement with the first billing cycle of March 2016.

As a term of the LPSC-approved settlement authorizing the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station, Entergy Louisiana agreed to make a filing with the LPSC to review its decisions to deactivate Ninemile 3 and Willow Glen 2 and 4 and its decision to retire Little Gypsy 1.  In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana made its compliance filing with the LPSC. Entergy Louisiana, LPSC staff, and intervenors participated in a technical conference in March 2016 where Entergy Louisiana presented information on its deactivation/retirement decisions for these four units in addition to information on the current deactivation decisions for the ten-year planning horizon. Parties have requested further proceedings on the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4.  This matter is pending before an ALJ, and a hearing has been scheduled in March 2017 to determine, under applicable law, whether Willow Glen 2 and 4 units should be returned to service.

Retail Rates - Gas

In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2015. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 10.22%, which is within the authorized bandwidth, therefore requiring no change in rates. In March 2016 the LPSC staff issued its report stating that the 2015 gas rate stabilization plan filing is in compliance with the exception of several issues that require additional information, explanation, or clarification for which the LPSC staff has reserved the right to further review. In July 2016 the parties to the proceeding filed an unopposed joint report and motion for entry of order accepting report that indicates no outstanding issues remain in the filing. Absent approval of an extension by the LPSC, test year 2015 is the final year under the current gas rate stabilization plan. In February 2016, however, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the term of the gas rate stabilization plan for an additional three-year term. A procedural schedule has been established, including a hearing in November 2016.

Filings with the MPSC

In March 2016, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2016 test year filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s projected earned return for the 2016 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing showed a $32.6 million rate increase was necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 9.96%, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. In June 2016 the MPSC approved Entergy Mississippi’s joint stipulation with the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff. The joint stipulation provided for a total revenue increase of $23.7 million. The revenue increase includes a $19.4 million increase through the formula rate plan, resulting in a return on common equity point of adjustment of 10.07%. The revenue increase also includes $4.3 million in incremental ad valorem tax expenses to be collected through an updated ad valorem tax adjustment rider. The revenue increase and ad valorem tax adjustment rider were effective with the July 2016 bills.

Filings with the City Council

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2015 the City Council authorized expansion of the terms of the purchased power and capacity acquisition cost recovery rider to recover the non-fuel purchased power expense from Ninemile 6, the revenue requirement associated with the purchase of Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station, and a credit to customers of $400 thousand monthly beginning June 2016 in recognition of the decrease in other operation and maintenance expenses that would result with the deactivation of Michoud Units 2 and 3. In March 2016, Entergy New Orleans purchased Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station for approximately $237 million and initiated recovery of these costs with March 2016 bills. In July 2016, Entergy New Orleans and the City Council Utility Committee agreed to a temporary increase in the credit to customers to a total of $1.4 million monthly for August 2016 through December 2016.

Internal Restructuring

In July 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a restructuring which would result in the transfer of substantially all of the assets and operations of Entergy New Orleans to a new entity, which would ultimately be held by an existing Entergy subsidiary holding company. The restructuring is subject to regulatory review and approval of the City Council and the FERC. If the application is approved by the City Council in 2016, Entergy New Orleans has proposed to credit retail customers $5 million in each of the years 2016 and 2017. The filing with the FERC has not yet been made, but if the restructuring is approved by the FERC by December 31, 2018, Entergy New Orleans has proposed to credit retail customers $5 million in each of the years 2018, 2019, and 2020.  If City Council and FERC approvals are obtained, Entergy New Orleans expects the restructuring will be consummated by December 31, 2017.

It is currently contemplated that Entergy New Orleans would undertake a multi-step restructuring, which would include the following:

• Entergy New Orleans would redeem its outstanding preferred stock at a price of approximately $21 million, which includes an expected call premium of approximately $819,000, plus any accumulated and unpaid dividends.

• Entergy New Orleans would convert from a Louisiana corporation to a Texas corporation.

• Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy New Orleans will allocate substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy New Orleans Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy New Orleans Power), and Entergy New Orleans Power will assume substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy New Orleans, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy New Orleans will remain in existence and hold the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power.

• Entergy New Orleans will contribute the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy New Orleans Power will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

• Entergy New Orleans will change its name to Entergy New Orleans Holdings, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans Power will then change its name to Entergy New Orleans, LLC.

Upon the completion of the restructuring, Entergy New Orleans, LLC will hold substantially all of the assets, and will have assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy New Orleans. Entergy New Orleans may modify or supplement the steps to be taken to effectuate the restructuring.

Filings with the PUCT

2011 Rate Case

See the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Texas’s 2011 rate case. As discussed in the Form 10-K, several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced in the Form 10-K, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. In April 2016 the Third Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the District Court’s decision on all points. Entergy Texas petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. That petition is pending.

Other Filings

In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony was filed in November 2015, with the PUCT staff and other parties proposing various disallowances involving, among other things, MISO charges, vegetation management costs, and bad debt expenses that would reduce the requested increase by approximately $2 million. In addition to those recommended disallowances, a number of parties recommended that Entergy Texas’s request be reduced by an additional $3.4 million to account for load growth since base rates were last set. A hearing on the merits was held in December 2015. In February 2016 a State Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the PUCT disallow approximately $2 million from Entergy Texas’s $13 million request, but recommending that the PUCT not accept the load growth offset. In April 2016 the PUCT voted to allow Entergy Texas’s TCRF rates to become effective as of April 14, 2016 when those rates are finally approved, but did not otherwise address the proposal for decision. In May 2016 the PUCT deferred final consideration of Entergy Texas’s TCRF application and opened the record to consider additional evidence to be provided by Entergy Texas and potentially other parties regarding the rate-making treatment of spare transmission-level transformers that are transferred among the Utility operating companies.  In June 2016 the PUCT indicated that it would take up in a future rulemaking project the issue of whether a load growth adjustment should apply to a TCRF. In July 2016 the PUCT issued an order generally accepting the proposal for decision but declining to adjust the TCRF baseline in two instances as recommended by the ALJ, which results in a total annual allowance of approximately $10.5 million. The PUCT also ordered its staff and Entergy Texas to track all spare autotransformer transfers going forward so that it could address the appropriate accounting treatment and prudence of such transfers in Entergy Texas’s next base rate case.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

Consolidated 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Rate Filing Proceedings

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2014 the FERC consolidated the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. 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. 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 occurred in November 2015, and an initial decision from the ALJ was issued in July 2016. In the initial decision, the ALJ generally agreed with Entergy’s bandwidth calculations with one exception on the accounting related to the Waterford 3 sale/leaseback. Briefs are due in August and September 2016.

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. In March 2016, Entergy Services filed a settlement at the FERC resolving the 2015 rate filing. In the settlement, the parties did not dispute the 2015 rates as calculated with no payments or receipts. Pursuant to the settlement, the 2015 rates are subject to a recalculation and compliance filing upon resolution of other ongoing bandwidth-related proceedings. The settlement is pending at the FERC.

2016 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2015 Production Costs

In May 2016, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2016 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing showed that no payments and receipts were required in 2016 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2015 production costs. The LPSC and City Council intervened in the proceeding.

Interruptible Load Proceedings

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the interruptible load proceeding. In April 2016 the FERC issued an order on remand that addressed the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding. The order on remand affirmed the FERC’s denial of refunds for the 15-month refund effective period. The FERC explained and clarified its policies regarding refunds and concluded that the evidence in the record demonstrated that the relevant equitable factors favored not requiring refunds in this case. The FERC also noted that, under Section 206(c) of the Federal Power Act, in a Section 206 proceeding involving two or more electric utility companies of a registered holding company system, the FERC may order refunds only if it determines the refunds would not cause the registered holding company to experience any reduction in revenues resulting from an inability of an electric utility company in the system to recover the resulting increase in costs. The FERC stated it was not able to find that the Entergy system would not experience a reduction in revenues if refunds were awarded in this proceeding, which further supported the denial of refunds. In May 2016 the LPSC filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceedings

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceeding initiated at the FERC by the LPSC in June 2009 in which the LPSC initially requested that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocate the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibits sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies.  In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing the requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denies Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirms FERC’s earlier rulings that Entergy’s original methodology for allocating energy costs to the opportunity sales was incorrect and, as a result, Entergy Arkansas must make payments to the other Utility operating companies to put them in the same position that they would have been in absent the incorrect allocation. The FERC clarified that interest should be included with the payments. The second order affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the rulings in the ALJ’s initial decision regarding the methodology that should be used to calculate the payments Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The FERC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that a full re-run of intra-system bills should be performed, but required that methodology be modified so that the sales have the same priority for purposes of energy allocation as joint account sales. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that adjustments to other System Agreement service schedules and excess bandwidth payments should not be taken into account when calculating the payments to be made by Entergy Arkansas. The FERC held that such adjustments and excess bandwidth payments should be taken into account, but ordered further proceedings before an ALJ to address whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology.

The effect of the FERC’s decisions, if upheld, is that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. As part of the further proceedings required by the FERC, Entergy will re-run intra-system bills for a ten-year period (2000-2009) to quantify the effects of the FERC's rulings. The ALJ will issue an initial decision and FERC will issue an order reviewing that decision. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing that initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order. Because further proceedings are required, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case, however, in the first quarter 2016 Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retail and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Therefore Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory asset of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs.

In May 2016 a procedural schedule was established with a hearing in May 2017 and an initial decision expected in August 2017. Also in May 2016, Entergy Services filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the requests for rehearing filed in July 2012. Entergy Services also filed a request for clarification and/or rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The APSC and the LPSC also filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order.

Storm Cost Recovery

Entergy Mississippi

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in February 2015, Entergy Mississippi provided notice to the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff that the storm damage provision would be set to zero effective with the March 2015 billing cycle as a result of Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance exceeding $15 million as of January 31, 2015, but would return to its current level when the storm damage provision balance becomes less than $10 million. As of April 30, 2016, Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance was less than $10 million, therefore Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with June 2016 bills.

System Energy [Member]

Public Utilities Disclosure [Text Block]

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 Arkansas

Production Cost Allocation Rider

In May 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider, which reflected recovery of the production cost allocation rider true-up adjustment of the 2014 and 2015 unrecovered retail balance in the amount of $1.9 million. Additionally, the redetermined rates reflect the recovery of a $1.9 million System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment resulting from a compliance filing pursuant to the FERC’s December 2015 order related to test year 2009 production costs. The rates for the 2016 production cost allocation rider update became effective with the first billing cycle of July 2016, and rates will be effective through June 2017.

Entergy Louisiana

In April 2010 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 through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009.  The LPSC staff issued its audit report in January 2013.  The LPSC staff recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $1.9 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $1 million from Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates.  The recommended refund was made by Entergy Louisiana in May 2013 in the form of a credit to customers through its fuel adjustment clause filing. Two parties intervened in the proceeding. A procedural schedule was established for the identification of issues by the intervenors and for Entergy Louisiana to submit comments regarding the LPSC staff report and any issues raised by intervenors. One intervenor sought further proceedings regarding certain issues it raised in its comments on the LPSC staff report. Entergy Louisiana filed responses to both the LPSC staff report and the issues raised by the intervenor. After conducting additional discovery, in April 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its supplemental audit report, which concluded that Entergy Louisiana was not imprudent on the issues raised by the intervenor. A procedural schedule has been established for this proceeding, including an evidentiary hearing in November 2016.

In December 2011 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate a proceeding to audit the fuel adjustment clause filings of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and its affiliates.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period 2005 through 2009.  In March 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its audit report. In its report, the LPSC staff consultant recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $8.6 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $12.7 millionfrom Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates. Entergy Louisiana has recorded a provision for the estimated outcome of this proceeding. A procedural schedule has been established for this proceeding, including a hearing in December 2016.

In June 2016 the LPSC staff provided notice of an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings and purchased gas adjustment clause filings. In recognition of the business combination that occurred in 2015, the audit notice was issued to Entergy Louisiana and will also include a review of charges to legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers prior to the business combination. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment and purchased gas adjustment mechanisms for the period from 2012 through 2015. Discovery has not commenced.

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. In November 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included a projected over-recovery balance of $48 million projected through January 31, 2016. In January 2016 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective February 1, 2016. The MPSC further ordered, however, that due to the significant change in natural gas price forecasts since Entergy Mississippi’s filing in November 2015, Entergy Mississippi shall file a revised fuel factor with the MPSC no later than February 1, 2016. Pursuant to that order, Entergy Mississippi submitted a revised fuel factor. Additionally, because Entergy Mississippi’s projected over-recovery balance for the period ending January 31, 2017 was $68 million, in February 2016, Entergy Mississippi filed for another interim adjustment to the energy cost factor effective April 2016 to flow through to customers the projected over-recovery balance over a six-month period. That interim adjustment was approved by the MPSC in February 2016 effective for April 2016 bills.

Entergy Texas

As discussed in the Form 10-K, 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. In January 2016 the PUCT issued its order affirming the ALJ’s recommendation, and Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the PUCT’s decision, which the PUCT denied. In March 2016, Entergy Texas filed a complaint in Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas and a petition in the Travis County (State) District Court appealing the PUCT’s decision. Both appeals are pending, but the appeals do not stay the PUCT’s decision. The federal appeal is scheduled to be heard in December 2016. In April 2016, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application to refund to customers approximately $56.2 million. The refund resulted from (i) $41.8 million of fuel cost recovery over-collections through February 2016, (ii) the $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments, discussed above, that Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs, and (iii) $3.5 million in bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received related to 2006-2008 production costs. In June 2016, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed settlement agreement that added additional over-recovered fuel costs for the months of March and April 2016. The settlement resulted in a $68 million refund. The ALJ approved the refund on an interim basis to be made to most customers over a four-month period beginning with the first billing cycle of July 2016. In July 2016 the PUCT issued an order approving the interim refund.

In July 2016, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2016. Under a recent PUCT rule change, a fuel reconciliation is required to be filed at least once every three years and outside of a base rate case filing. During the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas incurred approximately $1.77 billion in Texas jurisdictional eligible fuel and purchased power expenses, net of certain revenues credited to such expenses and other adjustments. Entergy Texas estimates an over-recovery balance of approximately $19.3 million, including interest, which Entergy Texas is requesting authority to carry over as the beginning balance for the subsequent reconciliation period beginning Apri1 2016. Entergy Texas also notes, however, that the $19.3 million over collection is currently being refunded to customers as a portion of the interim fuel refund beginning with the first billing cycle of July 2016, discussed above. Entergy Texas also is requesting a prudence finding for each of the fuel-related contracts and arrangements entered into or modified during the reconciliation period that have not be reviewed by the PUCT in a prior proceeding. The PUCT has one year to issue a final order in this proceeding.

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

2015 Rate Case

In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notified the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requested a retail rate increase of$268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requested a 10.2% return on common equity. In September 2015 the 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. In December 2015, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and certain of the intervenors in the rate case filed with the APSC a joint motion for approval of a settlement of the case that proposed a retail rate increase of approximately $225 million with a net increase in revenue of approximately $133 million; an authorized return on common equity of 9.75%; and a formula rate plan tariff that provides a +/- 50 basis point band around the 9.75% allowed return on common equity. A significant portion of the rate increase is related to Entergy Arkansas’s acquisition in March 2016 of Union Power Station Power Block 2 for a base purchase price of $237 million, subject to closing adjustments. The settlement agreement also provided for amortization over a 10-year period of $7.7 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO post-Fukushima compliance and $9.9 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO flood barrier compliance. A settlement hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that would reduce the retail rate increase proposed in the settlement by $5 million. The settling parties agreed to the APSC modifications in February 2016. The new rates were effective February 24, 2016 and began billing with the first billing cycle of April 2016. In March 2016, Entergy Arkansas made a compliance filing regarding the new rates that included an interim base rate adjustment surcharge, effective with the first billing cycle of April 2016, to recover the incremental revenue requirement for the period February 24, 2016 through March 31, 2016. The interim base rate adjustment surcharge will recover a total of $21.1 million over the nine-month period from April 2016 through December 2016.

2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2016 Entergy Arkansas formula rate plan filing showing Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the twelve months ended December 31, 2017 test year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing requests a $68 million rate increase to achieve Entergy Arkansas’s target earned return on common equity of 9.75%. Entergy Arkansas requested an order approving its proposed formula rate plan adjustment by December 9, 2016. If a final order is not issued by this date, the proposed formula rate plan adjustment will become effective December 30, 2016, subject to refund.

Filings with the LPSC

Retail Rates - Electric

2015 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2015 calendar year operations. The evaluation report reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.07%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following other adjustments, however, are required under the formula rate plan: an increase in the legacy Entergy Louisiana additional capacity mechanism of $14.2 million; a separate increase in legacy Entergy Louisiana revenue of $10 million primarily to reflect the effects of the termination of the System Agreement; an increase in the legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana additional capacity mechanism of $0.5 million; a decrease in legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana revenue of $58.7 million primarily to reflect the effects of the termination of the System Agreement; and an increase of $11 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism. Rates are scheduled to be implemented with the first billing cycle of September 2016, subject to refund.

Ninemile 6

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a Ninemile 6 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. Testimony filed by LPSC staff generally supports the prudence of the management of the project and recovery of the costs incurred to complete the project. The LPSC staff had questioned the warranty coverage for one element of the project. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint motion to suspend the procedural schedule pending the filing of an uncontested joint stipulated settlement.

Union Power Station

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2015 the LPSC approved a settlement authorizing the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana acquired Power Blocks 3 and 4 of Union Power Station for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $474 million and implemented rates to collect the estimated first-year revenue requirement with the first billing cycle of March 2016.

As a term of the LPSC-approved settlement authorizing the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station, Entergy Louisiana agreed to make a filing with the LPSC to review its decisions to deactivate Ninemile 3 and Willow Glen 2 and 4 and its decision to retire Little Gypsy 1.  In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana made its compliance filing with the LPSC. Entergy Louisiana, LPSC staff, and intervenors participated in a technical conference in March 2016 where Entergy Louisiana presented information on its deactivation/retirement decisions for these four units in addition to information on the current deactivation decisions for the ten-year planning horizon. Parties have requested further proceedings on the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4.  This matter is pending before an ALJ, and a hearing has been scheduled in March 2017 to determine, under applicable law, whether Willow Glen 2 and 4 units should be returned to service.

Retail Rates - Gas

In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2015. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 10.22%, which is within the authorized bandwidth, therefore requiring no change in rates. In March 2016 the LPSC staff issued its report stating that the 2015 gas rate stabilization plan filing is in compliance with the exception of several issues that require additional information, explanation, or clarification for which the LPSC staff has reserved the right to further review. In July 2016 the parties to the proceeding filed an unopposed joint report and motion for entry of order accepting report that indicates no outstanding issues remain in the filing. Absent approval of an extension by the LPSC, test year 2015 is the final year under the current gas rate stabilization plan. In February 2016, however, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the term of the gas rate stabilization plan for an additional three-year term. A procedural schedule has been established, including a hearing in November 2016.

Filings with the MPSC

In March 2016, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2016 test year filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s projected earned return for the 2016 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing showed a $32.6 million rate increase was necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 9.96%, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. In June 2016 the MPSC approved Entergy Mississippi’s joint stipulation with the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff. The joint stipulation provided for a total revenue increase of $23.7 million. The revenue increase includes a $19.4 million increase through the formula rate plan, resulting in a return on common equity point of adjustment of 10.07%. The revenue increase also includes $4.3 million in incremental ad valorem tax expenses to be collected through an updated ad valorem tax adjustment rider. The revenue increase and ad valorem tax adjustment rider were effective with the July 2016 bills.

Filings with the City Council

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2015 the City Council authorized expansion of the terms of the purchased power and capacity acquisition cost recovery rider to recover the non-fuel purchased power expense from Ninemile 6, the revenue requirement associated with the purchase of Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station, and a credit to customers of $400 thousand monthly beginning June 2016 in recognition of the decrease in other operation and maintenance expenses that would result with the deactivation of Michoud Units 2 and 3. In March 2016, Entergy New Orleans purchased Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station for approximately $237 million and initiated recovery of these costs with March 2016 bills. In July 2016, Entergy New Orleans and the City Council Utility Committee agreed to a temporary increase in the credit to customers to a total of $1.4 million monthly for August 2016 through December 2016.

Internal Restructuring

In July 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a restructuring which would result in the transfer of substantially all of the assets and operations of Entergy New Orleans to a new entity, which would ultimately be held by an existing Entergy subsidiary holding company. The restructuring is subject to regulatory review and approval of the City Council and the FERC. If the application is approved by the City Council in 2016, Entergy New Orleans has proposed to credit retail customers $5 million in each of the years 2016 and 2017. The filing with the FERC has not yet been made, but if the restructuring is approved by the FERC by December 31, 2018, Entergy New Orleans has proposed to credit retail customers $5 million in each of the years 2018, 2019, and 2020.  If City Council and FERC approvals are obtained, Entergy New Orleans expects the restructuring will be consummated by December 31, 2017.

It is currently contemplated that Entergy New Orleans would undertake a multi-step restructuring, which would include the following:

• Entergy New Orleans would redeem its outstanding preferred stock at a price of approximately $21 million, which includes an expected call premium of approximately $819,000, plus any accumulated and unpaid dividends.

• Entergy New Orleans would convert from a Louisiana corporation to a Texas corporation.

• Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy New Orleans will allocate substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy New Orleans Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy New Orleans Power), and Entergy New Orleans Power will assume substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy New Orleans, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy New Orleans will remain in existence and hold the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power.

• Entergy New Orleans will contribute the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy New Orleans Power will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

• Entergy New Orleans will change its name to Entergy New Orleans Holdings, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans Power will then change its name to Entergy New Orleans, LLC.

Upon the completion of the restructuring, Entergy New Orleans, LLC will hold substantially all of the assets, and will have assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy New Orleans. Entergy New Orleans may modify or supplement the steps to be taken to effectuate the restructuring.

Filings with the PUCT

2011 Rate Case

See the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Texas’s 2011 rate case. As discussed in the Form 10-K, several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced in the Form 10-K, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. In April 2016 the Third Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the District Court’s decision on all points. Entergy Texas petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. That petition is pending.

Other Filings

In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony was filed in November 2015, with the PUCT staff and other parties proposing various disallowances involving, among other things, MISO charges, vegetation management costs, and bad debt expenses that would reduce the requested increase by approximately $2 million. In addition to those recommended disallowances, a number of parties recommended that Entergy Texas’s request be reduced by an additional $3.4 million to account for load growth since base rates were last set. A hearing on the merits was held in December 2015. In February 2016 a State Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the PUCT disallow approximately $2 million from Entergy Texas’s $13 million request, but recommending that the PUCT not accept the load growth offset. In April 2016 the PUCT voted to allow Entergy Texas’s TCRF rates to become effective as of April 14, 2016 when those rates are finally approved, but did not otherwise address the proposal for decision. In May 2016 the PUCT deferred final consideration of Entergy Texas’s TCRF application and opened the record to consider additional evidence to be provided by Entergy Texas and potentially other parties regarding the rate-making treatment of spare transmission-level transformers that are transferred among the Utility operating companies.  In June 2016 the PUCT indicated that it would take up in a future rulemaking project the issue of whether a load growth adjustment should apply to a TCRF. In July 2016 the PUCT issued an order generally accepting the proposal for decision but declining to adjust the TCRF baseline in two instances as recommended by the ALJ, which results in a total annual allowance of approximately $10.5 million. The PUCT also ordered its staff and Entergy Texas to track all spare autotransformer transfers going forward so that it could address the appropriate accounting treatment and prudence of such transfers in Entergy Texas’s next base rate case.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

Consolidated 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Rate Filing Proceedings

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2014 the FERC consolidated the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. 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. 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 occurred in November 2015, and an initial decision from the ALJ was issued in July 2016. In the initial decision, the ALJ generally agreed with Entergy’s bandwidth calculations with one exception on the accounting related to the Waterford 3 sale/leaseback. Briefs are due in August and September 2016.

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. In March 2016, Entergy Services filed a settlement at the FERC resolving the 2015 rate filing. In the settlement, the parties did not dispute the 2015 rates as calculated with no payments or receipts. Pursuant to the settlement, the 2015 rates are subject to a recalculation and compliance filing upon resolution of other ongoing bandwidth-related proceedings. The settlement is pending at the FERC.

2016 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2015 Production Costs

In May 2016, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2016 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing showed that no payments and receipts were required in 2016 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2015 production costs. The LPSC and City Council intervened in the proceeding.

Interruptible Load Proceedings

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the interruptible load proceeding. In April 2016 the FERC issued an order on remand that addressed the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding. The order on remand affirmed the FERC’s denial of refunds for the 15-month refund effective period. The FERC explained and clarified its policies regarding refunds and concluded that the evidence in the record demonstrated that the relevant equitable factors favored not requiring refunds in this case. The FERC also noted that, under Section 206(c) of the Federal Power Act, in a Section 206 proceeding involving two or more electric utility companies of a registered holding company system, the FERC may order refunds only if it determines the refunds would not cause the registered holding company to experience any reduction in revenues resulting from an inability of an electric utility company in the system to recover the resulting increase in costs. The FERC stated it was not able to find that the Entergy system would not experience a reduction in revenues if refunds were awarded in this proceeding, which further supported the denial of refunds. In May 2016 the LPSC filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceedings

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceeding initiated at the FERC by the LPSC in June 2009 in which the LPSC initially requested that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocate the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibits sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies.  In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing the requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denies Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirms FERC’s earlier rulings that Entergy’s original methodology for allocating energy costs to the opportunity sales was incorrect and, as a result, Entergy Arkansas must make payments to the other Utility operating companies to put them in the same position that they would have been in absent the incorrect allocation. The FERC clarified that interest should be included with the payments. The second order affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the rulings in the ALJ’s initial decision regarding the methodology that should be used to calculate the payments Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The FERC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that a full re-run of intra-system bills should be performed, but required that methodology be modified so that the sales have the same priority for purposes of energy allocation as joint account sales. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that adjustments to other System Agreement service schedules and excess bandwidth payments should not be taken into account when calculating the payments to be made by Entergy Arkansas. The FERC held that such adjustments and excess bandwidth payments should be taken into account, but ordered further proceedings before an ALJ to address whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology.

The effect of the FERC’s decisions, if upheld, is that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. As part of the further proceedings required by the FERC, Entergy will re-run intra-system bills for a ten-year period (2000-2009) to quantify the effects of the FERC's rulings. The ALJ will issue an initial decision and FERC will issue an order reviewing that decision. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing that initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order. Because further proceedings are required, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case, however, in the first quarter 2016 Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retail and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Therefore Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory asset of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs.

In May 2016 a procedural schedule was established with a hearing in May 2017 and an initial decision expected in August 2017. Also in May 2016, Entergy Services filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the requests for rehearing filed in July 2012. Entergy Services also filed a request for clarification and/or rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The APSC and the LPSC also filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order.

Storm Cost Recovery

Entergy Mississippi

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in February 2015, Entergy Mississippi provided notice to the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff that the storm damage provision would be set to zero effective with the March 2015 billing cycle as a result of Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance exceeding $15 million as of January 31, 2015, but would return to its current level when the storm damage provision balance becomes less than $10 million. As of April 30, 2016, Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance was less than $10 million, therefore Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with June 2016 bills.