Rate And Regulatory Matters	3 Months Ended
Rate And Regulatory Matters	Mar. 31, 2019
Rate and Regulatory Matters	RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01882 per kWh to $0.01462 per kWh and became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2019. In March 2019 the Arkansas Attorney General filed a response to Entergy Arkansas’s annual adjustment and included with its filing a motion for investigation of alleged overcharges to customers in connection with the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. Entergy Arkansas filed its response to the Attorney General’s motion in April 2019 in which Entergy Arkansas stated its intent to initiate a proceeding to address recovery issues related to the October 2018 FERC order. Entergy Louisiana In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. In January 2019 the LPSC staff consultant issued its audit report. In its report, the LPSC staff consultant recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $7.3 million, plus interest, to customers based upon the imputation of a claim of vendor fault in servicing its nuclear plant. Entergy Louisiana recorded a provision in the first quarter 2019 for the potential outcome of the audit. Entergy Mississippi Mississippi Attorney General Complaint As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The defendants have denied the allegations. In December 2008 the Attorney General’s lawsuit was removed to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. Pre-trial and settlement conferences were held in October 2018. In October 2018 the District Court rescheduled the trial to April 2019. In April 2019 the District Court remanded the Attorney General’s lawsuit to the Hinds County Chancery Court in Jackson, Mississippi. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that discussion. Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas) Formula Rate Plan As discussed in the Form 10-K, the formula rate plan filing that will be made in July 2019 to set the formula rates for the 2020 calendar year will include a netting adjustment that will compare projected costs and sales for 2018 that were approved in the 2017 formula rate plan filing to actual 2018 costs and sales data. In the fourth quarter 2018 Entergy Arkansas recorded a provision of $35.1 million that reflected the estimate of the historical year netting adjustment that will be included in the 2019 filing to reflect the change in formula rate plan revenues associated with actual 2018 results when compared to the allowed rate of return on equity. In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Arkansas recorded an additional $10.5 million provision to reflect the current estimate of the historical year netting adjustment to be included in the 2019 filing. Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi) Formula Rate Plan In March 2019, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2019 test year filing and 2018 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2018 calendar year to be above the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 test year filing shows a $36.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.94% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2018 look-back filing compares actual 2018 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and shows a $10.1 million interim decrease in formula rate plan revenues is necessary. In the fourth quarter 2018, Entergy Mississippi recorded a provision of $9.3 million that reflected the estimate of the difference between the 2018 expected earned rate of return on rate base and an established performance-adjusted benchmark rate of return under the formula rate plan performance-adjusted bandwidth mechanism. In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Mississippi recorded a $0.8 million increase in the provision to reflect the amount shown in the look-back filing. The filing is currently subject to MPSC review. A final order is expected in the second quarter 2019, with the resulting rates effective for the first billing cycle of July 2019. Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Texas) Base Rate Case In January 2019, Entergy Texas filed for recovery of rate case expenses totaling $7.2 million. The amounts requested primarily include internal and external expenses related to litigating the 2018 base rate case. Parties filed testimony in April 2019 recommending a disallowance ranging from $3.2 million to $4.2 million of the $7.2 million requested. Entergy Texas is evaluating its response to the parties’ positions. A hearing is scheduled for June 2019. Other Filings In March 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider. The proposed new DCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $3.2 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. A procedural schedule has been established, with a hearing in June 2019. In December 2018, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider. The proposed new TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $2.7 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and September 30, 2018. In April 2019 parties filed testimony proposing a load growth adjustment, which would fully offset Entergy Texas’s proposed TCRF revenue requirement. The PUCT has previously ruled that load growth adjustments should not be included in a TCRF. Entergy Texas filed a motion for interim rates to be effective April 2019. In April 2019 the hearing on Entergy Texas’s motion and the hearing on the merits were held, and the ALJ suspended the date on which the TCRF would be put into permanent effect until July 2019, unless an earlier decision is issued by the PUCT. This matter is currently awaiting the ALJ’s proposal for decision. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2018, Entergy made a compliance filing in response to the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. The compliance filing provided a final calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payments to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. No protests were filed in response to the December 2018 compliance filing. The December 2018 compliance filing is pending FERC action. In February 2019 the LPSC filed a new complaint relating to two issues that were raised in the opportunity sales proceeding, but that, in its October 2018 order, the FERC held were outside the scope of the proceeding. In March 2019, Entergy Services filed an answer and motion to dismiss the new complaint. Complaints Against System Energy Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the return on equity complaints filed by the APSC and the MPSC and by the LPSC against System Energy. The LPSC’s complaint also includes a challenge to System Energy’s capital structure. In August 2018 the FERC issued an order dismissing the LPSC’s request to investigate System Energy’s capital structure and setting for hearing the return on equity complaint, with a refund effective date of April 2018. The portion of the LPSC’s complaint dealing with return on equity was subsequently consolidated with the APSC and MPSC complaint for hearing. The consolidated hearing has been scheduled for September 2019, and the parties are required to address an order (issued in a separate proceeding involving New England transmission owners) that proposed modifying the FERC’s standard methodology for determining return on equity. In September 2018, System Energy filed a request for rehearing and the LPSC filed a request for rehearing or reconsideration of the FERC’s August 2018 order. The LPSC’s request referenced an amended complaint that it filed on the same day raising the same capital structure claim the FERC had earlier dismissed. The FERC initiated a new proceeding for the amended capital structure complaint, and System Energy submitted a response in October 2018. In January 2019 the FERC set the amended capital structure complaint for settlement and hearing proceedings. Settlement procedures in the capital structure proceeding commenced in February 2019. In January 2019 the LPSC and the APSC and MPSC filed direct testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the refund period January 23, 2017 through April 23, 2018, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.81% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.24%. For the refund period April 27, 2018 through July 27, 2019, and for application on a prospective basis, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.97% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.41%. In March 2019, System Energy submitted answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, System Energy’s testimony argues for a return on equity of 10.10% (median) or 10.70% (midpoint). For the second refund period, System Energy’s testimony shows that the calculated returns on equity for the first period fall within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity, and thus the second complaint should be dismissed (and the first period return on equity used going forward). If the FERC nonetheless were to set a new return on equity for the second period (and going forward), System Energy argues the return on equity should be either 10.32% (median) or 10.69% (midpoint). Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. In February 2019 the presiding ALJ ruled that the hearing ordered by the FERC includes the issue of whether specific subcategories of accumulated deferred income tax should be included in, or excluded from, System Energy’s formula rate. In March 2019 the LPSC, MPSC, APSC and City Council filed direct testimony. The LPSC testimony seeks refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income taxes associated with uncertain tax positions (claimed to be approximately $334.5 million as of December 2018), and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest (claimed to be approximately $274.8 million), as well as interest on those amounts. The direct testimony of the City Council and the APSC and MPSC address various issues raised by the LPSC. System Energy disputes that any refunds are owed for billings under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. A hearing has been scheduled for November 2019.
Entergy Arkansas [Member]
Rate and Regulatory Matters	RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01882 per kWh to $0.01462 per kWh and became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2019. In March 2019 the Arkansas Attorney General filed a response to Entergy Arkansas’s annual adjustment and included with its filing a motion for investigation of alleged overcharges to customers in connection with the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. Entergy Arkansas filed its response to the Attorney General’s motion in April 2019 in which Entergy Arkansas stated its intent to initiate a proceeding to address recovery issues related to the October 2018 FERC order. Entergy Louisiana In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. In January 2019 the LPSC staff consultant issued its audit report. In its report, the LPSC staff consultant recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $7.3 million, plus interest, to customers based upon the imputation of a claim of vendor fault in servicing its nuclear plant. Entergy Louisiana recorded a provision in the first quarter 2019 for the potential outcome of the audit. Entergy Mississippi Mississippi Attorney General Complaint As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The defendants have denied the allegations. In December 2008 the Attorney General’s lawsuit was removed to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. Pre-trial and settlement conferences were held in October 2018. In October 2018 the District Court rescheduled the trial to April 2019. In April 2019 the District Court remanded the Attorney General’s lawsuit to the Hinds County Chancery Court in Jackson, Mississippi. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that discussion. Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas) Formula Rate Plan As discussed in the Form 10-K, the formula rate plan filing that will be made in July 2019 to set the formula rates for the 2020 calendar year will include a netting adjustment that will compare projected costs and sales for 2018 that were approved in the 2017 formula rate plan filing to actual 2018 costs and sales data. In the fourth quarter 2018 Entergy Arkansas recorded a provision of $35.1 million that reflected the estimate of the historical year netting adjustment that will be included in the 2019 filing to reflect the change in formula rate plan revenues associated with actual 2018 results when compared to the allowed rate of return on equity. In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Arkansas recorded an additional $10.5 million provision to reflect the current estimate of the historical year netting adjustment to be included in the 2019 filing. Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi) Formula Rate Plan In March 2019, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2019 test year filing and 2018 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2018 calendar year to be above the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 test year filing shows a $36.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.94% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2018 look-back filing compares actual 2018 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and shows a $10.1 million interim decrease in formula rate plan revenues is necessary. In the fourth quarter 2018, Entergy Mississippi recorded a provision of $9.3 million that reflected the estimate of the difference between the 2018 expected earned rate of return on rate base and an established performance-adjusted benchmark rate of return under the formula rate plan performance-adjusted bandwidth mechanism. In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Mississippi recorded a $0.8 million increase in the provision to reflect the amount shown in the look-back filing. The filing is currently subject to MPSC review. A final order is expected in the second quarter 2019, with the resulting rates effective for the first billing cycle of July 2019. Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Texas) Base Rate Case In January 2019, Entergy Texas filed for recovery of rate case expenses totaling $7.2 million. The amounts requested primarily include internal and external expenses related to litigating the 2018 base rate case. Parties filed testimony in April 2019 recommending a disallowance ranging from $3.2 million to $4.2 million of the $7.2 million requested. Entergy Texas is evaluating its response to the parties’ positions. A hearing is scheduled for June 2019. Other Filings In March 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider. The proposed new DCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $3.2 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. A procedural schedule has been established, with a hearing in June 2019. In December 2018, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider. The proposed new TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $2.7 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and September 30, 2018. In April 2019 parties filed testimony proposing a load growth adjustment, which would fully offset Entergy Texas’s proposed TCRF revenue requirement. The PUCT has previously ruled that load growth adjustments should not be included in a TCRF. Entergy Texas filed a motion for interim rates to be effective April 2019. In April 2019 the hearing on Entergy Texas’s motion and the hearing on the merits were held, and the ALJ suspended the date on which the TCRF would be put into permanent effect until July 2019, unless an earlier decision is issued by the PUCT. This matter is currently awaiting the ALJ’s proposal for decision. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2018, Entergy made a compliance filing in response to the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. The compliance filing provided a final calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payments to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. No protests were filed in response to the December 2018 compliance filing. The December 2018 compliance filing is pending FERC action. In February 2019 the LPSC filed a new complaint relating to two issues that were raised in the opportunity sales proceeding, but that, in its October 2018 order, the FERC held were outside the scope of the proceeding. In March 2019, Entergy Services filed an answer and motion to dismiss the new complaint. Complaints Against System Energy Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the return on equity complaints filed by the APSC and the MPSC and by the LPSC against System Energy. The LPSC’s complaint also includes a challenge to System Energy’s capital structure. In August 2018 the FERC issued an order dismissing the LPSC’s request to investigate System Energy’s capital structure and setting for hearing the return on equity complaint, with a refund effective date of April 2018. The portion of the LPSC’s complaint dealing with return on equity was subsequently consolidated with the APSC and MPSC complaint for hearing. The consolidated hearing has been scheduled for September 2019, and the parties are required to address an order (issued in a separate proceeding involving New England transmission owners) that proposed modifying the FERC’s standard methodology for determining return on equity. In September 2018, System Energy filed a request for rehearing and the LPSC filed a request for rehearing or reconsideration of the FERC’s August 2018 order. The LPSC’s request referenced an amended complaint that it filed on the same day raising the same capital structure claim the FERC had earlier dismissed. The FERC initiated a new proceeding for the amended capital structure complaint, and System Energy submitted a response in October 2018. In January 2019 the FERC set the amended capital structure complaint for settlement and hearing proceedings. Settlement procedures in the capital structure proceeding commenced in February 2019. In January 2019 the LPSC and the APSC and MPSC filed direct testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the refund period January 23, 2017 through April 23, 2018, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.81% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.24%. For the refund period April 27, 2018 through July 27, 2019, and for application on a prospective basis, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.97% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.41%. In March 2019, System Energy submitted answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, System Energy’s testimony argues for a return on equity of 10.10% (median) or 10.70% (midpoint). For the second refund period, System Energy’s testimony shows that the calculated returns on equity for the first period fall within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity, and thus the second complaint should be dismissed (and the first period return on equity used going forward). If the FERC nonetheless were to set a new return on equity for the second period (and going forward), System Energy argues the return on equity should be either 10.32% (median) or 10.69% (midpoint). Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. In February 2019 the presiding ALJ ruled that the hearing ordered by the FERC includes the issue of whether specific subcategories of accumulated deferred income tax should be included in, or excluded from, System Energy’s formula rate. In March 2019 the LPSC, MPSC, APSC and City Council filed direct testimony. The LPSC testimony seeks refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income taxes associated with uncertain tax positions (claimed to be approximately $334.5 million as of December 2018), and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest (claimed to be approximately $274.8 million), as well as interest on those amounts. The direct testimony of the City Council and the APSC and MPSC address various issues raised by the LPSC. System Energy disputes that any refunds are owed for billings under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. A hearing has been scheduled for November 2019.
Entergy Louisiana [Member]
Rate and Regulatory Matters	RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01882 per kWh to $0.01462 per kWh and became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2019. In March 2019 the Arkansas Attorney General filed a response to Entergy Arkansas’s annual adjustment and included with its filing a motion for investigation of alleged overcharges to customers in connection with the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. Entergy Arkansas filed its response to the Attorney General’s motion in April 2019 in which Entergy Arkansas stated its intent to initiate a proceeding to address recovery issues related to the October 2018 FERC order. Entergy Louisiana In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. In January 2019 the LPSC staff consultant issued its audit report. In its report, the LPSC staff consultant recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $7.3 million, plus interest, to customers based upon the imputation of a claim of vendor fault in servicing its nuclear plant. Entergy Louisiana recorded a provision in the first quarter 2019 for the potential outcome of the audit. Entergy Mississippi Mississippi Attorney General Complaint As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The defendants have denied the allegations. In December 2008 the Attorney General’s lawsuit was removed to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. Pre-trial and settlement conferences were held in October 2018. In October 2018 the District Court rescheduled the trial to April 2019. In April 2019 the District Court remanded the Attorney General’s lawsuit to the Hinds County Chancery Court in Jackson, Mississippi. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that discussion. Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas) Formula Rate Plan As discussed in the Form 10-K, the formula rate plan filing that will be made in July 2019 to set the formula rates for the 2020 calendar year will include a netting adjustment that will compare projected costs and sales for 2018 that were approved in the 2017 formula rate plan filing to actual 2018 costs and sales data. In the fourth quarter 2018 Entergy Arkansas recorded a provision of $35.1 million that reflected the estimate of the historical year netting adjustment that will be included in the 2019 filing to reflect the change in formula rate plan revenues associated with actual 2018 results when compared to the allowed rate of return on equity. In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Arkansas recorded an additional $10.5 million provision to reflect the current estimate of the historical year netting adjustment to be included in the 2019 filing. Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi) Formula Rate Plan In March 2019, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2019 test year filing and 2018 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2018 calendar year to be above the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 test year filing shows a $36.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.94% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2018 look-back filing compares actual 2018 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and shows a $10.1 million interim decrease in formula rate plan revenues is necessary. In the fourth quarter 2018, Entergy Mississippi recorded a provision of $9.3 million that reflected the estimate of the difference between the 2018 expected earned rate of return on rate base and an established performance-adjusted benchmark rate of return under the formula rate plan performance-adjusted bandwidth mechanism. In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Mississippi recorded a $0.8 million increase in the provision to reflect the amount shown in the look-back filing. The filing is currently subject to MPSC review. A final order is expected in the second quarter 2019, with the resulting rates effective for the first billing cycle of July 2019. Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Texas) Base Rate Case In January 2019, Entergy Texas filed for recovery of rate case expenses totaling $7.2 million. The amounts requested primarily include internal and external expenses related to litigating the 2018 base rate case. Parties filed testimony in April 2019 recommending a disallowance ranging from $3.2 million to $4.2 million of the $7.2 million requested. Entergy Texas is evaluating its response to the parties’ positions. A hearing is scheduled for June 2019. Other Filings In March 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider. The proposed new DCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $3.2 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. A procedural schedule has been established, with a hearing in June 2019. In December 2018, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider. The proposed new TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $2.7 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and September 30, 2018. In April 2019 parties filed testimony proposing a load growth adjustment, which would fully offset Entergy Texas’s proposed TCRF revenue requirement. The PUCT has previously ruled that load growth adjustments should not be included in a TCRF. Entergy Texas filed a motion for interim rates to be effective April 2019. In April 2019 the hearing on Entergy Texas’s motion and the hearing on the merits were held, and the ALJ suspended the date on which the TCRF would be put into permanent effect until July 2019, unless an earlier decision is issued by the PUCT. This matter is currently awaiting the ALJ’s proposal for decision. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2018, Entergy made a compliance filing in response to the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. The compliance filing provided a final calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payments to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. No protests were filed in response to the December 2018 compliance filing. The December 2018 compliance filing is pending FERC action. In February 2019 the LPSC filed a new complaint relating to two issues that were raised in the opportunity sales proceeding, but that, in its October 2018 order, the FERC held were outside the scope of the proceeding. In March 2019, Entergy Services filed an answer and motion to dismiss the new complaint. Complaints Against System Energy Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the return on equity complaints filed by the APSC and the MPSC and by the LPSC against System Energy. The LPSC’s complaint also includes a challenge to System Energy’s capital structure. In August 2018 the FERC issued an order dismissing the LPSC’s request to investigate System Energy’s capital structure and setting for hearing the return on equity complaint, with a refund effective date of April 2018. The portion of the LPSC’s complaint dealing with return on equity was subsequently consolidated with the APSC and MPSC complaint for hearing. The consolidated hearing has been scheduled for September 2019, and the parties are required to address an order (issued in a separate proceeding involving New England transmission owners) that proposed modifying the FERC’s standard methodology for determining return on equity. In September 2018, System Energy filed a request for rehearing and the LPSC filed a request for rehearing or reconsideration of the FERC’s August 2018 order. The LPSC’s request referenced an amended complaint that it filed on the same day raising the same capital structure claim the FERC had earlier dismissed. The FERC initiated a new proceeding for the amended capital structure complaint, and System Energy submitted a response in October 2018. In January 2019 the FERC set the amended capital structure complaint for settlement and hearing proceedings. Settlement procedures in the capital structure proceeding commenced in February 2019. In January 2019 the LPSC and the APSC and MPSC filed direct testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the refund period January 23, 2017 through April 23, 2018, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.81% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.24%. For the refund period April 27, 2018 through July 27, 2019, and for application on a prospective basis, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.97% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.41%. In March 2019, System Energy submitted answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, System Energy’s testimony argues for a return on equity of 10.10% (median) or 10.70% (midpoint). For the second refund period, System Energy’s testimony shows that the calculated returns on equity for the first period fall within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity, and thus the second complaint should be dismissed (and the first period return on equity used going forward). If the FERC nonetheless were to set a new return on equity for the second period (and going forward), System Energy argues the return on equity should be either 10.32% (median) or 10.69% (midpoint). Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. In February 2019 the presiding ALJ ruled that the hearing ordered by the FERC includes the issue of whether specific subcategories of accumulated deferred income tax should be included in, or excluded from, System Energy’s formula rate. In March 2019 the LPSC, MPSC, APSC and City Council filed direct testimony. The LPSC testimony seeks refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income taxes associated with uncertain tax positions (claimed to be approximately $334.5 million as of December 2018), and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest (claimed to be approximately $274.8 million), as well as interest on those amounts. The direct testimony of the City Council and the APSC and MPSC address various issues raised by the LPSC. System Energy disputes that any refunds are owed for billings under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. A hearing has been scheduled for November 2019.
Entergy Mississippi [Member]
Rate and Regulatory Matters	RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01882 per kWh to $0.01462 per kWh and became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2019. In March 2019 the Arkansas Attorney General filed a response to Entergy Arkansas’s annual adjustment and included with its filing a motion for investigation of alleged overcharges to customers in connection with the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. Entergy Arkansas filed its response to the Attorney General’s motion in April 2019 in which Entergy Arkansas stated its intent to initiate a proceeding to address recovery issues related to the October 2018 FERC order. Entergy Louisiana In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. In January 2019 the LPSC staff consultant issued its audit report. In its report, the LPSC staff consultant recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $7.3 million, plus interest, to customers based upon the imputation of a claim of vendor fault in servicing its nuclear plant. Entergy Louisiana recorded a provision in the first quarter 2019 for the potential outcome of the audit. Entergy Mississippi Mississippi Attorney General Complaint As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The defendants have denied the allegations. In December 2008 the Attorney General’s lawsuit was removed to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. Pre-trial and settlement conferences were held in October 2018. In October 2018 the District Court rescheduled the trial to April 2019. In April 2019 the District Court remanded the Attorney General’s lawsuit to the Hinds County Chancery Court in Jackson, Mississippi. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that discussion. Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas) Formula Rate Plan As discussed in the Form 10-K, the formula rate plan filing that will be made in July 2019 to set the formula rates for the 2020 calendar year will include a netting adjustment that will compare projected costs and sales for 2018 that were approved in the 2017 formula rate plan filing to actual 2018 costs and sales data. In the fourth quarter 2018 Entergy Arkansas recorded a provision of $35.1 million that reflected the estimate of the historical year netting adjustment that will be included in the 2019 filing to reflect the change in formula rate plan revenues associated with actual 2018 results when compared to the allowed rate of return on equity. In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Arkansas recorded an additional $10.5 million provision to reflect the current estimate of the historical year netting adjustment to be included in the 2019 filing. Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi) Formula Rate Plan In March 2019, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2019 test year filing and 2018 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2018 calendar year to be above the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 test year filing shows a $36.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.94% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2018 look-back filing compares actual 2018 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and shows a $10.1 million interim decrease in formula rate plan revenues is necessary. In the fourth quarter 2018, Entergy Mississippi recorded a provision of $9.3 million that reflected the estimate of the difference between the 2018 expected earned rate of return on rate base and an established performance-adjusted benchmark rate of return under the formula rate plan performance-adjusted bandwidth mechanism. In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Mississippi recorded a $0.8 million increase in the provision to reflect the amount shown in the look-back filing. The filing is currently subject to MPSC review. A final order is expected in the second quarter 2019, with the resulting rates effective for the first billing cycle of July 2019. Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Texas) Base Rate Case In January 2019, Entergy Texas filed for recovery of rate case expenses totaling $7.2 million. The amounts requested primarily include internal and external expenses related to litigating the 2018 base rate case. Parties filed testimony in April 2019 recommending a disallowance ranging from $3.2 million to $4.2 million of the $7.2 million requested. Entergy Texas is evaluating its response to the parties’ positions. A hearing is scheduled for June 2019. Other Filings In March 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider. The proposed new DCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $3.2 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. A procedural schedule has been established, with a hearing in June 2019. In December 2018, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider. The proposed new TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $2.7 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and September 30, 2018. In April 2019 parties filed testimony proposing a load growth adjustment, which would fully offset Entergy Texas’s proposed TCRF revenue requirement. The PUCT has previously ruled that load growth adjustments should not be included in a TCRF. Entergy Texas filed a motion for interim rates to be effective April 2019. In April 2019 the hearing on Entergy Texas’s motion and the hearing on the merits were held, and the ALJ suspended the date on which the TCRF would be put into permanent effect until July 2019, unless an earlier decision is issued by the PUCT. This matter is currently awaiting the ALJ’s proposal for decision. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2018, Entergy made a compliance filing in response to the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. The compliance filing provided a final calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payments to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. No protests were filed in response to the December 2018 compliance filing. The December 2018 compliance filing is pending FERC action. In February 2019 the LPSC filed a new complaint relating to two issues that were raised in the opportunity sales proceeding, but that, in its October 2018 order, the FERC held were outside the scope of the proceeding. In March 2019, Entergy Services filed an answer and motion to dismiss the new complaint. Complaints Against System Energy Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the return on equity complaints filed by the APSC and the MPSC and by the LPSC against System Energy. The LPSC’s complaint also includes a challenge to System Energy’s capital structure. In August 2018 the FERC issued an order dismissing the LPSC’s request to investigate System Energy’s capital structure and setting for hearing the return on equity complaint, with a refund effective date of April 2018. The portion of the LPSC’s complaint dealing with return on equity was subsequently consolidated with the APSC and MPSC complaint for hearing. The consolidated hearing has been scheduled for September 2019, and the parties are required to address an order (issued in a separate proceeding involving New England transmission owners) that proposed modifying the FERC’s standard methodology for determining return on equity. In September 2018, System Energy filed a request for rehearing and the LPSC filed a request for rehearing or reconsideration of the FERC’s August 2018 order. The LPSC’s request referenced an amended complaint that it filed on the same day raising the same capital structure claim the FERC had earlier dismissed. The FERC initiated a new proceeding for the amended capital structure complaint, and System Energy submitted a response in October 2018. In January 2019 the FERC set the amended capital structure complaint for settlement and hearing proceedings. Settlement procedures in the capital structure proceeding commenced in February 2019. In January 2019 the LPSC and the APSC and MPSC filed direct testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the refund period January 23, 2017 through April 23, 2018, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.81% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.24%. For the refund period April 27, 2018 through July 27, 2019, and for application on a prospective basis, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.97% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.41%. In March 2019, System Energy submitted answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, System Energy’s testimony argues for a return on equity of 10.10% (median) or 10.70% (midpoint). For the second refund period, System Energy’s testimony shows that the calculated returns on equity for the first period fall within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity, and thus the second complaint should be dismissed (and the first period return on equity used going forward). If the FERC nonetheless were to set a new return on equity for the second period (and going forward), System Energy argues the return on equity should be either 10.32% (median) or 10.69% (midpoint). Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. In February 2019 the presiding ALJ ruled that the hearing ordered by the FERC includes the issue of whether specific subcategories of accumulated deferred income tax should be included in, or excluded from, System Energy’s formula rate. In March 2019 the LPSC, MPSC, APSC and City Council filed direct testimony. The LPSC testimony seeks refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income taxes associated with uncertain tax positions (claimed to be approximately $334.5 million as of December 2018), and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest (claimed to be approximately $274.8 million), as well as interest on those amounts. The direct testimony of the City Council and the APSC and MPSC address various issues raised by the LPSC. System Energy disputes that any refunds are owed for billings under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. A hearing has been scheduled for November 2019.
Entergy New Orleans [Member]
Rate and Regulatory Matters	RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01882 per kWh to $0.01462 per kWh and became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2019. In March 2019 the Arkansas Attorney General filed a response to Entergy Arkansas’s annual adjustment and included with its filing a motion for investigation of alleged overcharges to customers in connection with the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. Entergy Arkansas filed its response to the Attorney General’s motion in April 2019 in which Entergy Arkansas stated its intent to initiate a proceeding to address recovery issues related to the October 2018 FERC order. Entergy Louisiana In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. In January 2019 the LPSC staff consultant issued its audit report. In its report, the LPSC staff consultant recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $7.3 million, plus interest, to customers based upon the imputation of a claim of vendor fault in servicing its nuclear plant. Entergy Louisiana recorded a provision in the first quarter 2019 for the potential outcome of the audit. Entergy Mississippi Mississippi Attorney General Complaint As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The defendants have denied the allegations. In December 2008 the Attorney General’s lawsuit was removed to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. Pre-trial and settlement conferences were held in October 2018. In October 2018 the District Court rescheduled the trial to April 2019. In April 2019 the District Court remanded the Attorney General’s lawsuit to the Hinds County Chancery Court in Jackson, Mississippi. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that discussion. Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas) Formula Rate Plan As discussed in the Form 10-K, the formula rate plan filing that will be made in July 2019 to set the formula rates for the 2020 calendar year will include a netting adjustment that will compare projected costs and sales for 2018 that were approved in the 2017 formula rate plan filing to actual 2018 costs and sales data. In the fourth quarter 2018 Entergy Arkansas recorded a provision of $35.1 million that reflected the estimate of the historical year netting adjustment that will be included in the 2019 filing to reflect the change in formula rate plan revenues associated with actual 2018 results when compared to the allowed rate of return on equity. In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Arkansas recorded an additional $10.5 million provision to reflect the current estimate of the historical year netting adjustment to be included in the 2019 filing. Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi) Formula Rate Plan In March 2019, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2019 test year filing and 2018 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2018 calendar year to be above the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 test year filing shows a $36.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.94% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2018 look-back filing compares actual 2018 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and shows a $10.1 million interim decrease in formula rate plan revenues is necessary. In the fourth quarter 2018, Entergy Mississippi recorded a provision of $9.3 million that reflected the estimate of the difference between the 2018 expected earned rate of return on rate base and an established performance-adjusted benchmark rate of return under the formula rate plan performance-adjusted bandwidth mechanism. In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Mississippi recorded a $0.8 million increase in the provision to reflect the amount shown in the look-back filing. The filing is currently subject to MPSC review. A final order is expected in the second quarter 2019, with the resulting rates effective for the first billing cycle of July 2019. Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Texas) Base Rate Case In January 2019, Entergy Texas filed for recovery of rate case expenses totaling $7.2 million. The amounts requested primarily include internal and external expenses related to litigating the 2018 base rate case. Parties filed testimony in April 2019 recommending a disallowance ranging from $3.2 million to $4.2 million of the $7.2 million requested. Entergy Texas is evaluating its response to the parties’ positions. A hearing is scheduled for June 2019. Other Filings In March 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider. The proposed new DCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $3.2 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. A procedural schedule has been established, with a hearing in June 2019. In December 2018, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider. The proposed new TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $2.7 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and September 30, 2018. In April 2019 parties filed testimony proposing a load growth adjustment, which would fully offset Entergy Texas’s proposed TCRF revenue requirement. The PUCT has previously ruled that load growth adjustments should not be included in a TCRF. Entergy Texas filed a motion for interim rates to be effective April 2019. In April 2019 the hearing on Entergy Texas’s motion and the hearing on the merits were held, and the ALJ suspended the date on which the TCRF would be put into permanent effect until July 2019, unless an earlier decision is issued by the PUCT. This matter is currently awaiting the ALJ’s proposal for decision. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2018, Entergy made a compliance filing in response to the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. The compliance filing provided a final calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payments to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. No protests were filed in response to the December 2018 compliance filing. The December 2018 compliance filing is pending FERC action. In February 2019 the LPSC filed a new complaint relating to two issues that were raised in the opportunity sales proceeding, but that, in its October 2018 order, the FERC held were outside the scope of the proceeding. In March 2019, Entergy Services filed an answer and motion to dismiss the new complaint. Complaints Against System Energy Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the return on equity complaints filed by the APSC and the MPSC and by the LPSC against System Energy. The LPSC’s complaint also includes a challenge to System Energy’s capital structure. In August 2018 the FERC issued an order dismissing the LPSC’s request to investigate System Energy’s capital structure and setting for hearing the return on equity complaint, with a refund effective date of April 2018. The portion of the LPSC’s complaint dealing with return on equity was subsequently consolidated with the APSC and MPSC complaint for hearing. The consolidated hearing has been scheduled for September 2019, and the parties are required to address an order (issued in a separate proceeding involving New England transmission owners) that proposed modifying the FERC’s standard methodology for determining return on equity. In September 2018, System Energy filed a request for rehearing and the LPSC filed a request for rehearing or reconsideration of the FERC’s August 2018 order. The LPSC’s request referenced an amended complaint that it filed on the same day raising the same capital structure claim the FERC had earlier dismissed. The FERC initiated a new proceeding for the amended capital structure complaint, and System Energy submitted a response in October 2018. In January 2019 the FERC set the amended capital structure complaint for settlement and hearing proceedings. Settlement procedures in the capital structure proceeding commenced in February 2019. In January 2019 the LPSC and the APSC and MPSC filed direct testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the refund period January 23, 2017 through April 23, 2018, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.81% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.24%. For the refund period April 27, 2018 through July 27, 2019, and for application on a prospective basis, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.97% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.41%. In March 2019, System Energy submitted answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, System Energy’s testimony argues for a return on equity of 10.10% (median) or 10.70% (midpoint). For the second refund period, System Energy’s testimony shows that the calculated returns on equity for the first period fall within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity, and thus the second complaint should be dismissed (and the first period return on equity used going forward). If the FERC nonetheless were to set a new return on equity for the second period (and going forward), System Energy argues the return on equity should be either 10.32% (median) or 10.69% (midpoint). Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. In February 2019 the presiding ALJ ruled that the hearing ordered by the FERC includes the issue of whether specific subcategories of accumulated deferred income tax should be included in, or excluded from, System Energy’s formula rate. In March 2019 the LPSC, MPSC, APSC and City Council filed direct testimony. The LPSC testimony seeks refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income taxes associated with uncertain tax positions (claimed to be approximately $334.5 million as of December 2018), and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest (claimed to be approximately $274.8 million), as well as interest on those amounts. The direct testimony of the City Council and the APSC and MPSC address various issues raised by the LPSC. System Energy disputes that any refunds are owed for billings under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. A hearing has been scheduled for November 2019.
Entergy Texas [Member]
Rate and Regulatory Matters	RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01882 per kWh to $0.01462 per kWh and became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2019. In March 2019 the Arkansas Attorney General filed a response to Entergy Arkansas’s annual adjustment and included with its filing a motion for investigation of alleged overcharges to customers in connection with the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. Entergy Arkansas filed its response to the Attorney General’s motion in April 2019 in which Entergy Arkansas stated its intent to initiate a proceeding to address recovery issues related to the October 2018 FERC order. Entergy Louisiana In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. In January 2019 the LPSC staff consultant issued its audit report. In its report, the LPSC staff consultant recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $7.3 million, plus interest, to customers based upon the imputation of a claim of vendor fault in servicing its nuclear plant. Entergy Louisiana recorded a provision in the first quarter 2019 for the potential outcome of the audit. Entergy Mississippi Mississippi Attorney General Complaint As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The defendants have denied the allegations. In December 2008 the Attorney General’s lawsuit was removed to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. Pre-trial and settlement conferences were held in October 2018. In October 2018 the District Court rescheduled the trial to April 2019. In April 2019 the District Court remanded the Attorney General’s lawsuit to the Hinds County Chancery Court in Jackson, Mississippi. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that discussion. Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas) Formula Rate Plan As discussed in the Form 10-K, the formula rate plan filing that will be made in July 2019 to set the formula rates for the 2020 calendar year will include a netting adjustment that will compare projected costs and sales for 2018 that were approved in the 2017 formula rate plan filing to actual 2018 costs and sales data. In the fourth quarter 2018 Entergy Arkansas recorded a provision of $35.1 million that reflected the estimate of the historical year netting adjustment that will be included in the 2019 filing to reflect the change in formula rate plan revenues associated with actual 2018 results when compared to the allowed rate of return on equity. In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Arkansas recorded an additional $10.5 million provision to reflect the current estimate of the historical year netting adjustment to be included in the 2019 filing. Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi) Formula Rate Plan In March 2019, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2019 test year filing and 2018 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2018 calendar year to be above the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 test year filing shows a $36.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.94% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2018 look-back filing compares actual 2018 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and shows a $10.1 million interim decrease in formula rate plan revenues is necessary. In the fourth quarter 2018, Entergy Mississippi recorded a provision of $9.3 million that reflected the estimate of the difference between the 2018 expected earned rate of return on rate base and an established performance-adjusted benchmark rate of return under the formula rate plan performance-adjusted bandwidth mechanism. In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Mississippi recorded a $0.8 million increase in the provision to reflect the amount shown in the look-back filing. The filing is currently subject to MPSC review. A final order is expected in the second quarter 2019, with the resulting rates effective for the first billing cycle of July 2019. Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Texas) Base Rate Case In January 2019, Entergy Texas filed for recovery of rate case expenses totaling $7.2 million. The amounts requested primarily include internal and external expenses related to litigating the 2018 base rate case. Parties filed testimony in April 2019 recommending a disallowance ranging from $3.2 million to $4.2 million of the $7.2 million requested. Entergy Texas is evaluating its response to the parties’ positions. A hearing is scheduled for June 2019. Other Filings In March 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider. The proposed new DCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $3.2 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. A procedural schedule has been established, with a hearing in June 2019. In December 2018, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider. The proposed new TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $2.7 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and September 30, 2018. In April 2019 parties filed testimony proposing a load growth adjustment, which would fully offset Entergy Texas’s proposed TCRF revenue requirement. The PUCT has previously ruled that load growth adjustments should not be included in a TCRF. Entergy Texas filed a motion for interim rates to be effective April 2019. In April 2019 the hearing on Entergy Texas’s motion and the hearing on the merits were held, and the ALJ suspended the date on which the TCRF would be put into permanent effect until July 2019, unless an earlier decision is issued by the PUCT. This matter is currently awaiting the ALJ’s proposal for decision. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2018, Entergy made a compliance filing in response to the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. The compliance filing provided a final calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payments to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. No protests were filed in response to the December 2018 compliance filing. The December 2018 compliance filing is pending FERC action. In February 2019 the LPSC filed a new complaint relating to two issues that were raised in the opportunity sales proceeding, but that, in its October 2018 order, the FERC held were outside the scope of the proceeding. In March 2019, Entergy Services filed an answer and motion to dismiss the new complaint. Complaints Against System Energy Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the return on equity complaints filed by the APSC and the MPSC and by the LPSC against System Energy. The LPSC’s complaint also includes a challenge to System Energy’s capital structure. In August 2018 the FERC issued an order dismissing the LPSC’s request to investigate System Energy’s capital structure and setting for hearing the return on equity complaint, with a refund effective date of April 2018. The portion of the LPSC’s complaint dealing with return on equity was subsequently consolidated with the APSC and MPSC complaint for hearing. The consolidated hearing has been scheduled for September 2019, and the parties are required to address an order (issued in a separate proceeding involving New England transmission owners) that proposed modifying the FERC’s standard methodology for determining return on equity. In September 2018, System Energy filed a request for rehearing and the LPSC filed a request for rehearing or reconsideration of the FERC’s August 2018 order. The LPSC’s request referenced an amended complaint that it filed on the same day raising the same capital structure claim the FERC had earlier dismissed. The FERC initiated a new proceeding for the amended capital structure complaint, and System Energy submitted a response in October 2018. In January 2019 the FERC set the amended capital structure complaint for settlement and hearing proceedings. Settlement procedures in the capital structure proceeding commenced in February 2019. In January 2019 the LPSC and the APSC and MPSC filed direct testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the refund period January 23, 2017 through April 23, 2018, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.81% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.24%. For the refund period April 27, 2018 through July 27, 2019, and for application on a prospective basis, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.97% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.41%. In March 2019, System Energy submitted answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, System Energy’s testimony argues for a return on equity of 10.10% (median) or 10.70% (midpoint). For the second refund period, System Energy’s testimony shows that the calculated returns on equity for the first period fall within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity, and thus the second complaint should be dismissed (and the first period return on equity used going forward). If the FERC nonetheless were to set a new return on equity for the second period (and going forward), System Energy argues the return on equity should be either 10.32% (median) or 10.69% (midpoint). Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. In February 2019 the presiding ALJ ruled that the hearing ordered by the FERC includes the issue of whether specific subcategories of accumulated deferred income tax should be included in, or excluded from, System Energy’s formula rate. In March 2019 the LPSC, MPSC, APSC and City Council filed direct testimony. The LPSC testimony seeks refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income taxes associated with uncertain tax positions (claimed to be approximately $334.5 million as of December 2018), and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest (claimed to be approximately $274.8 million), as well as interest on those amounts. The direct testimony of the City Council and the APSC and MPSC address various issues raised by the LPSC. System Energy disputes that any refunds are owed for billings under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. A hearing has been scheduled for November 2019.
System Energy [Member]
Rate and Regulatory Matters	RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01882 per kWh to $0.01462 per kWh and became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2019. In March 2019 the Arkansas Attorney General filed a response to Entergy Arkansas’s annual adjustment and included with its filing a motion for investigation of alleged overcharges to customers in connection with the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. Entergy Arkansas filed its response to the Attorney General’s motion in April 2019 in which Entergy Arkansas stated its intent to initiate a proceeding to address recovery issues related to the October 2018 FERC order. Entergy Louisiana In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. In January 2019 the LPSC staff consultant issued its audit report. In its report, the LPSC staff consultant recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $7.3 million, plus interest, to customers based upon the imputation of a claim of vendor fault in servicing its nuclear plant. Entergy Louisiana recorded a provision in the first quarter 2019 for the potential outcome of the audit. Entergy Mississippi Mississippi Attorney General Complaint As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The defendants have denied the allegations. In December 2008 the Attorney General’s lawsuit was removed to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. Pre-trial and settlement conferences were held in October 2018. In October 2018 the District Court rescheduled the trial to April 2019. In April 2019 the District Court remanded the Attorney General’s lawsuit to the Hinds County Chancery Court in Jackson, Mississippi. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that discussion. Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas) Formula Rate Plan As discussed in the Form 10-K, the formula rate plan filing that will be made in July 2019 to set the formula rates for the 2020 calendar year will include a netting adjustment that will compare projected costs and sales for 2018 that were approved in the 2017 formula rate plan filing to actual 2018 costs and sales data. In the fourth quarter 2018 Entergy Arkansas recorded a provision of $35.1 million that reflected the estimate of the historical year netting adjustment that will be included in the 2019 filing to reflect the change in formula rate plan revenues associated with actual 2018 results when compared to the allowed rate of return on equity. In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Arkansas recorded an additional $10.5 million provision to reflect the current estimate of the historical year netting adjustment to be included in the 2019 filing. Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi) Formula Rate Plan In March 2019, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2019 test year filing and 2018 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2018 calendar year to be above the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 test year filing shows a $36.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.94% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2018 look-back filing compares actual 2018 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and shows a $10.1 million interim decrease in formula rate plan revenues is necessary. In the fourth quarter 2018, Entergy Mississippi recorded a provision of $9.3 million that reflected the estimate of the difference between the 2018 expected earned rate of return on rate base and an established performance-adjusted benchmark rate of return under the formula rate plan performance-adjusted bandwidth mechanism. In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Mississippi recorded a $0.8 million increase in the provision to reflect the amount shown in the look-back filing. The filing is currently subject to MPSC review. A final order is expected in the second quarter 2019, with the resulting rates effective for the first billing cycle of July 2019. Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Texas) Base Rate Case In January 2019, Entergy Texas filed for recovery of rate case expenses totaling $7.2 million. The amounts requested primarily include internal and external expenses related to litigating the 2018 base rate case. Parties filed testimony in April 2019 recommending a disallowance ranging from $3.2 million to $4.2 million of the $7.2 million requested. Entergy Texas is evaluating its response to the parties’ positions. A hearing is scheduled for June 2019. Other Filings In March 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider. The proposed new DCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $3.2 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. A procedural schedule has been established, with a hearing in June 2019. In December 2018, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider. The proposed new TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $2.7 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and September 30, 2018. In April 2019 parties filed testimony proposing a load growth adjustment, which would fully offset Entergy Texas’s proposed TCRF revenue requirement. The PUCT has previously ruled that load growth adjustments should not be included in a TCRF. Entergy Texas filed a motion for interim rates to be effective April 2019. In April 2019 the hearing on Entergy Texas’s motion and the hearing on the merits were held, and the ALJ suspended the date on which the TCRF would be put into permanent effect until July 2019, unless an earlier decision is issued by the PUCT. This matter is currently awaiting the ALJ’s proposal for decision. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2018, Entergy made a compliance filing in response to the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. The compliance filing provided a final calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payments to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. No protests were filed in response to the December 2018 compliance filing. The December 2018 compliance filing is pending FERC action. In February 2019 the LPSC filed a new complaint relating to two issues that were raised in the opportunity sales proceeding, but that, in its October 2018 order, the FERC held were outside the scope of the proceeding. In March 2019, Entergy Services filed an answer and motion to dismiss the new complaint. Complaints Against System Energy Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the return on equity complaints filed by the APSC and the MPSC and by the LPSC against System Energy. The LPSC’s complaint also includes a challenge to System Energy’s capital structure. In August 2018 the FERC issued an order dismissing the LPSC’s request to investigate System Energy’s capital structure and setting for hearing the return on equity complaint, with a refund effective date of April 2018. The portion of the LPSC’s complaint dealing with return on equity was subsequently consolidated with the APSC and MPSC complaint for hearing. The consolidated hearing has been scheduled for September 2019, and the parties are required to address an order (issued in a separate proceeding involving New England transmission owners) that proposed modifying the FERC’s standard methodology for determining return on equity. In September 2018, System Energy filed a request for rehearing and the LPSC filed a request for rehearing or reconsideration of the FERC’s August 2018 order. The LPSC’s request referenced an amended complaint that it filed on the same day raising the same capital structure claim the FERC had earlier dismissed. The FERC initiated a new proceeding for the amended capital structure complaint, and System Energy submitted a response in October 2018. In January 2019 the FERC set the amended capital structure complaint for settlement and hearing proceedings. Settlement procedures in the capital structure proceeding commenced in February 2019. In January 2019 the LPSC and the APSC and MPSC filed direct testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the refund period January 23, 2017 through April 23, 2018, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.81% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.24%. For the refund period April 27, 2018 through July 27, 2019, and for application on a prospective basis, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.97% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.41%. In March 2019, System Energy submitted answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, System Energy’s testimony argues for a return on equity of 10.10% (median) or 10.70% (midpoint). For the second refund period, System Energy’s testimony shows that the calculated returns on equity for the first period fall within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity, and thus the second complaint should be dismissed (and the first period return on equity used going forward). If the FERC nonetheless were to set a new return on equity for the second period (and going forward), System Energy argues the return on equity should be either 10.32% (median) or 10.69% (midpoint). Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. In February 2019 the presiding ALJ ruled that the hearing ordered by the FERC includes the issue of whether specific subcategories of accumulated deferred income tax should be included in, or excluded from, System Energy’s formula rate. In March 2019 the LPSC, MPSC, APSC and City Council filed direct testimony. The LPSC testimony seeks refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income taxes associated with uncertain tax positions (claimed to be approximately $334.5 million as of December 2018), and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest (claimed to be approximately $274.8 million), as well as interest on those amounts. The direct testimony of the City Council and the APSC and MPSC address various issues raised by the LPSC. System Energy disputes that any refunds are owed for billings under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. A hearing has been scheduled for November 2019.