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

Regulatory assets represent incurred costs that have been deferred because they are probable of future recovery from customers through regulated rates. Regulatory liabilities represent (1) revenue or gains that have been deferred because it is probable such amounts will be returned to customers through future regulated rates or (2) billings in advance of expenditures for approved regulatory programs. In addition to the regulatory assets and liabilities that are specifically disclosed on the face of the balance sheets, the tables below provide detail of “Other regulatory assets” and “Other regulatory liabilities” that are included on Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ balance sheets as of December 31, 2022 and 2021:

Other Regulatory Assets

Entergy


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)	$1,968.5	$2,327.7
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)	1,103.2	935.5
Removal costs (Note 9)	1,058.9	1,488.8
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators and Note 5 - Securitization Bonds)	841.3	993.6
Qualified Pension Settlement Cost Deferral - recovered through March 2034 (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Settlement Cost)	194.7	113.2
Retired electric and gas meters - recovered through retail rates as determined by retail regulators	166.8	179.4
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through formula rates or rate riders as rates are redetermined by retail regulators	160.0	69.2
Opportunity Sales - recovery will be determined after final order in proceeding (Note 2 - Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding) (b)	131.8	131.8

Deferred COVID-19 costs - recovered through retail rates as determined by retail regulators (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)	120.9	133.1
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	68.4	74.7
Pension & postretirement benefits expense deferral - recovery period will be determined after final order in rate case proceeding (Note 11 - Entergy Texas Reserve)	30.6	14.6
Formula rate plan historical year rate adjustment (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	18.2	19.0
Attorney General litigation costs - recovered over a six-year period through March 2026 (b)	15.7	20.5

Other	157.4	112.2
Entergy Total	$6,036.4	$6,613.3

Entergy Arkansas


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)	$597.6	$640.0
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)	562.7	489.2
Removal costs (Note 9)	267.1	224.3
Opportunity sales - recovery will be determined after final order in proceeding (Note 2 - Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding) (b)	131.8	131.8
Qualified Pension Settlement Cost Deferral - recovered through March 2034 (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Settlement Cost)	67.1	39.8
Retired electric meters - recovered over 15-year period through March 2034	39.8	43.4
Deferred COVID-19 costs - recovery period to be determined (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)	39.0	32.6
Storm damage costs - recovered through retail rates	35.9	39.3
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually (b)	26.4	1.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	21.4	23.1
ANO Fukushima and Flood Barrier costs - recovered through retail rates through February 2026 (b)	5.6	7.3
Other	15.9	17.9
Entergy Arkansas Total	$1,810.3	$1,689.7

Entergy Louisiana


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Plans and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)	$481.7	$592.7
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators)	472.8	773.6
Removal costs (Note 9)	418.8	848.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)	346.3	286.6
Qualified Pension Settlement Cost Deferral - recovered through March 2034 (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Settlement Cost)	93.9	55.0
Retired electric and gas meters - recovered over a 22-year period through July 2041	88.0	91.7
Deferred COVID-19 costs - recovery period to be determined (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)	47.8	56.3
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	25.1	26.9
Other	81.8	45.7
Entergy Louisiana Total	$2,056.2	$2,776.7

Entergy Mississippi


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Removal Costs (Note 9)	$159.4	$136.8
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)	148.8	175.4
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through formula rates or rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	101.3	48.1
Qualified Pension Settlement Cost Deferral - recovered through March 2034 (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Settlement Cost)	24.3	13.8

Formula rate plan historical year rate adjustment (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	18.2	19.0
Attorney General litigation costs - recovered over a six-year period through March 2026 (b)	15.7	20.5
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	10.9	12.2
Deferred COVID-19 costs - recovered over a three-year period through March 2025 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)	9.8	15.0
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)	6.3	8.4
Other	24.8	13.2
Entergy Mississippi Total	$519.5	$462.4

Entergy New Orleans


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Removal costs (Note 9)	$56.3	$91.7
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)	51.4	44.9
Retired electric and gas meters - recovered over a 12-year period through July 2031 (b)	17.6	19.6
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators and Note 5 - Entergy New Orleans Securitization Bonds - Hurricane Isaac)	17.2	31.2
Deferred COVID-19 costs - recovered over a five-year period beginning September 2023 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)	13.9	17.4
Qualified Pension Settlement Cost Deferral - recovered through March 2034 (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Settlement Cost)	9.4	4.5
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	1.2	1.6
Other	35.1	37.7
Entergy New Orleans Total	$202.1	$248.6

Entergy Texas


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators and Note 5 - Entergy Texas Securitization Bonds - Hurricane Ike and Gustav and Entergy Texas Securitization Bonds - Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Winter Storm Uri)	$315.4	$143.1
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)	100.5	96.0
Removal costs (Note 9)	62.9	98.1
Pension & postretirement benefits expense deferral - recovery period will be determined after final order in rate case proceeding (Note 11 - Entergy Texas Reserve)	30.6	14.6
Retired electric meters - recovered over a 13-year period through February 2032	21.4	23.7
Neches and Sabine costs - recovered over a 10-year period through September 2028	14.0	16.4
Deferred COVID-19 costs - recovery period will be determined after final order in rate case proceeding (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)	10.4	11.7
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	9.1	9.8

Other	14.4	7.9
Entergy Texas Total	$578.7	$421.3

System Energy


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (b)	$186.1	$144.4
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Plans and Other Postretirement Benefits) (a)	133.9	160.3
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9)	94.4	89.7
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	0.7	1.1
System Energy Total	$415.1	$395.5

(a)Does not earn a return on investment, but is offset by related liabilities.

(b)Does not earn a return on investment.

Other Regulatory Liabilities

Entergy


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 16) (a)	$1,237.9	$1,993.3
Securitization financing savings obligation (Note 3)	327.7	127.4
Complaints against System Energy - potential future refunds (Note 2) (b)	249.8	—
Retail rate over-recovery - refunded through formula rate or rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	180.2	126.5

Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8)	95.4	106.2
Entergy Arkansas’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and the FERC	44.4	44.4
Deferred tax equity partnership earnings (Note 1)	43.8	18.1
Asset retirement obligation - return to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)	43.5	45.5


Grand Gulf sale-leaseback (Note 2 - Grand Gulf Sale-Leaseback Transactions)	—	55.6

Other	101.9	126.8
Entergy Total	$2,324.6	$2,643.8

Entergy Arkansas


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 16) (a)	$428.2	$685.4
Deferred tax equity partnership earnings (Note 1)	22.4	18.1
Internal restructuring guaranteed customer credits	13.2	19.8
Retail rate rider over-recovery - refunded through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	3.9	18.9
Other	8.1	1.1
Entergy Arkansas Total	$475.8	$743.3

Entergy Louisiana


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 16) (a)	$438.9	$692.2
Securitization financing savings obligation (Note 3)	327.7	127.4
Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8)	95.4	106.2
Retail rate rider over-recovery - refunded through rate riders as rates are determined annually	87.7	30.7
Asset retirement obligation - return to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)	43.5	45.5
Derivative Instruments & Hedging Activities (Note 15)	16.0	11.4
Business combination guaranteed customer benefits - returned to customers through retail rates and fuel rates December 2015 through November 2024	10.5	16.0





Other	18.3	13.2
Entergy Louisiana Total	$1,038.0	$1,042.6

Entergy Mississippi


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Retail rate rider over-recovery - refunded through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	$58.2	$34.2
Deferred tax equity partnership earnings (Note 1)	21.4	—
Grand Gulf over-recovery - returned to customers through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	—	15.1
Other	0.3	—
Entergy Mississippi Total	$79.9	$49.3

Entergy Texas


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Retail refunds - return to customers to be determined	$25.5	$25.0
Retail rate rider over-recovery - return to customers to be determined	10.9	1.7
Securitization over-recovery - return to customers to be determined (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators and Note 5 - Entergy Texas Securitization Bonds - Hurricane Rita and Entergy Texas Securitization Bonds - Hurricane Ike and Hurricane Gustav)	8.8	0.4
Advanced metering system (AMS) surcharge - returned to customers dependent upon AMS spend	—	7.3
Income tax rate change - refunded through a rate rider (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	—	2.7

Entergy Texas Total	$45.2	$37.1

System Energy


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 16) (a)	$370.8	$615.7
Complaints against System Energy - potential future refunds (Note 2) (b)	249.8	—
Entergy Arkansas’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and the FERC	44.4	44.4
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback (Note 2 - Grand Gulf Sale-Leaseback Transactions)	—	55.6
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback accumulated deferred income taxes (a)	—	25.6
Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - amortized and credited through the Unit Power Sales Agreement	—	3.6

System Energy Total	$665.0	$744.9

(a)Offset by related asset.

(b)As discussed in “Complaints Against System Energy” below, there is an additional $103.5 million classified as a current regulatory liability as of December 31, 2022.

Regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

See the “Other Tax Matters - Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” section in Note 3 to the financial statements for discussion of the effects of the December 2017 enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Tax Act), including its effects on Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ regulatory asset/liability for income taxes.

Entergy Arkansas

Consistent with its previously stated intent to return unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers as expeditiously as possible, Entergy Arkansas initiated a tariff proceeding in February 2018 proposing to establish a tax adjustment rider to provide retail customers with certain tax benefits of $467 million associated with the Tax Act. For the residential customer class, unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes were returned to customers over a 21-month period from April 2018 through December 2019. For all other customer classes, unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes were returned to customers over a nine-month period from April 2018 through December 2018. A true-up provision also was included in the rider, with any over- or under-returned unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes credited or billed to customers during the billing month of January 2020, with any residual amounts of over- or under-returned unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to be flowed through Entergy Arkansas’s energy cost recovery rider. In March 2018 the APSC approved the tax adjustment rider effective with the first billing cycle of April 2018.

In July 2018, Entergy Arkansas made its formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2019 calendar year. A hearing was held in May 2018 regarding the APSC’s inquiries into the effects of the Tax Act, including Entergy Arkansas’s proposal to utilize its formula rate plan rider for its customers to realize the remaining benefits of the Tax Act. Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan rider included a netting adjustment that compared actual annual results to the allowed rate of return on common equity. In July 2018 the APSC issued an order agreeing with Entergy Arkansas’s proposal to have the effects of the Tax Act on current income tax expense flow through Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan rider and with Entergy Arkansas’s treatment of protected and unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes. The APSC also directed Entergy Arkansas to submit in the tax adjustment rider proceeding, discussed above, the adjustments to all other riders affected by the Tax Act and to include an amendment for a true up mechanism where a rider affected by the Tax Act does not already contain a true-up mechanism. Pursuant to a 2018 settlement agreement in Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan proceeding, Entergy Arkansas also removed the net operating loss accumulated deferred income tax asset caused by the Tax Act from Entergy Arkansas’s tax adjustment rider. Entergy Arkansas’s compliance tariff filings were accepted by the APSC in October 2018. In February 2021, pursuant to its 2020 formula rate plan evaluation report settlement, Entergy Arkansas flowed $5.6 million in credits to customers through the tax adjustment rider based on the outcome of certain federal tax positions and a decrease in the state tax rate.

Entergy Louisiana

In an electric formula rate plan settlement approved by the LPSC in April 2018, the parties agreed that Entergy Louisiana would return to customers one-half of its eligible unprotected excess deferred income taxes from May 2018 through December 2018 and return to customers the other half from January 2019 through August 2022. In addition, the settlement provided that in order to flow back to customers certain other tax benefits created by the Tax Act, Entergy Louisiana established a regulatory liability effective January 1, 2018 in the amount of $9.1 million per month to reflect these tax benefits already included in retail rates until new base rates under the formula rate plan were established in September 2018, and this regulatory liability was returned to customers over the September 2018 through August 2019 formula rate plan rate-effective period. The LPSC staff and intervenors in the settlement reserved the right to obtain data from Entergy Louisiana to confirm the determination of excess accumulated deferred income taxes resulting from the Tax Act and the analysis thereof as part of the formula rate plan review proceeding for the 2017 test year filing which, as discussed below, Entergy Louisiana filed in June 2018.

Entergy New Orleans

After enactment of the Tax Act the City Council passed a resolution ordering Entergy New Orleans to, effective January 1, 2018, record deferred regulatory liabilities to account for the Tax Act’s effect on Entergy New Orleans’s revenue requirement and to make a filing by mid-March 2018 regarding the Tax Act’s effects on Entergy New Orleans’s operating income and rate base and potential mechanisms for customers to receive benefits of the Tax Act. The City Council’s resolution also directed Entergy New Orleans to request that Entergy Services file with the FERC for revisions of the Unit Power Sales Agreement and MSS-4 replacement tariffs to address the return of excess accumulated deferred income taxes. Entergy submitted filings of this type to the FERC.

In March 2018, Entergy New Orleans filed its response to the resolution stating that the Tax Act reduced income tax expense from what was then reflected in rates by approximately $8.2 million annually for electric operations and by approximately $1.3 million annually for gas operations. In the filing, Entergy New Orleans proposed to return to customers from June 2018 through August 2019 the benefits of the reduction in income tax expense and its unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes through a combination of bill credits and investments in energy efficiency programs, grid modernization, and Smart City projects. Entergy New Orleans submitted supplemental information in April 2018 and May 2018. Shortly thereafter, Entergy New Orleans and the City Council’s advisors reached an agreement in principle that provides for benefits that will be realized by Entergy New Orleans customers through bill credits that started in July 2018 and offsets to future investments in energy efficiency programs, grid modernization, and Smart City projects, as well as additional benefits related to the filings made at the FERC. The agreement in principle was approved by the City Council in June 2018. Entergy New Orleans expects to complete the bill credits necessary to comply with the agreement in principle by April 2023.

Entergy Texas

After enactment of the Tax Act the PUCT issued an order requiring most utilities, including Entergy Texas, beginning January 25, 2018, to record a regulatory liability for the difference between revenues collected under existing rates and revenues that would have been collected had existing rates been set using the new federal income tax rates and also for the balance of excess accumulated deferred income taxes. Entergy Texas had previously provided information to the PUCT staff and stated that it expected the PUCT to address the lower tax expense as part of Entergy Texas’s rate case expected to be filed in May 2018.

In May 2018, Entergy Texas filed its 2018 base rate case with the PUCT. Entergy Texas’s proposed rates and revenues reflected the inclusion of the federal income tax reductions due to the Tax Act. The PUCT issued an order in December 2018 establishing that 1) $25 million be credited to customers through a rider to reflect the lower federal income tax rate applicable to Entergy Texas from January 2018 through the date new rates were implemented, 2) $242.5 million of protected excess accumulated deferred income taxes be returned to customers through base rates under the average rate assumption method over the lives of the associated assets, and 3) $185.2 million of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes be returned to customers through a rider. The unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes rider included carrying charges and was in effect over a period of 12 months for larger customers and over a period of four years for other customers.

System Energy

In a filing made with the FERC in March 2018, System Energy proposed revisions to the Unit Power Sales Agreement to reflect the effects of the Tax Act. In the filing System Energy proposed to return identified quantities of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to its customers by the end of 2018. In May 2018 the FERC accepted System Energy’s proposed tax revisions with an effective date of June 1, 2018, subject to refund and the outcome of settlement and hearing procedures. Settlement discussions were terminated in April 2019, and a hearing was held in March 2020. The retail regulators of the Utility operating companies that are parties to the Unit Power Sales Agreement challenged the treatment and amount of excess accumulated deferred income tax liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions related to nuclear decommissioning. In July 2020 the presiding ALJ in the

proceeding issued an initial decision finding that there is an additional $147 million in unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes related to System Energy’s uncertain decommissioning tax deduction. The initial decision determined that System Energy should have included the $147 million in its March 2018 filing. System Energy had not included credits related to the effect of the Tax Act on the uncertain decommissioning tax position because it was uncertain whether the IRS would allow the deduction. The initial decision rejected both System Energy’s alternative argument that any crediting should occur over a ten-year period and the retail regulators’ argument that any crediting should occur over a two-year period. Instead, the initial decision concluded that System Energy should credit the additional unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes in a single lump sum revenue requirement reduction following a FERC order addressing the initial decision.

In September 2020, System Energy filed a brief on exceptions with the FERC, re-urging its positions and requesting the reversal of the ALJ’s initial decision. In December 2020, the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, City Council, and FERC trial staff filed briefs opposing exceptions.

As discussed below in “Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue,” in September 2020 the IRS issued a Notice of Proposed Adjustment (NOPA) and Entergy executed it. In September 2020, System Energy filed a motion to lodge the NOPA into the record in the FERC proceeding. In October 2020 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, City Council, and FERC trial staff filed oppositions to System Energy’s motion. As a result of the NOPA, System Energy filed, in October 2020, a new Federal Power Act section 205 filing at the FERC to credit the excess accumulated deferred income taxes resulting from the decommissioning uncertain tax position. System Energy proposed to credit the entire amount of the excess accumulated deferred income taxes arising from the successful portion of the decommissioning uncertain tax position by issuing a one-time credit of $17.8 million. In November 2020, the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and City Council filed a protest to the filing, and System Energy responded.

In November 2020 the IRS issued the Revenue Agent’s Report (RAR) for the 2014-2015 tax years and in December 2020 Entergy executed it. In December 2020, System Energy filed a motion to lodge the RAR into the record in the FERC proceeding addressing the Tax Act. In January 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and City Council filed a joint answer opposing System Energy’s motion, and the FERC trial staff also filed an answer opposing System Energy’s motion.

As a result of the RAR, in December 2020, System Energy also filed an amendment to its Federal Power Act section 205 filing to credit excess accumulated deferred income taxes arising from the successful portion of the decommissioning uncertain tax position. The amendment proposed the inclusion of the RAR as support for the filing. In December 2020 the LPSC, APSC, and City Council filed a protest in response to the amendment, reiterating objections to the filing to credit excess accumulated deferred income taxes arising from the successful portion of the decommissioning uncertain tax position. In February 2021 the FERC issued an order accepting System Energy’s Federal Power Act section 205 filing subject to refund, setting it for hearing, and holding the hearing in abeyance.

In November 2020, System Energy filed a motion to vacate the ALJ’s decision, arguing that it had been overtaken by changed circumstances because of the IRS’s determination resulting from the NOPA and RAR. In January 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and City Council filed a joint answer opposing System Energy’s motion, and the FERC trial staff also filed an answer opposing System Energy’s motion. Additional responsive pleadings were filed in February and March 2021.

In December 2022 the FERC issued an order addressing the ALJ’s initial decision and denying System Energy’s motion to vacate the initial decision. The FERC disagreed with the ALJ’s determination that $147 million should be credited to customers in the same manner as the excess accumulated deferred income taxes addressed in System Energy’s March 2018 filing, which had included a stated amount of excess accumulated deferred income taxes to be returned pursuant to a specified methodology and had not included any excess accumulated deferred income taxes associated with the decommissioning tax position. Instead, the FERC ordered System Energy to

compute the amount of excess accumulated deferred income taxes associated with the decommissioning tax position with consideration for the resolution of the tax position by the IRS. System Energy had previously issued a one-time credit for the excess accumulated deferred income taxes associated with the decommissioning tax position, and System Energy believes no further refunds are required under the methodology provided in the order. The FERC further ordered System Energy to submit a compliance filing within 60 days addressing the justness and reasonableness of the Unit Power Sales Agreement, with respect to its provisions for excess accumulated deferred income taxes. In February 2023, System Energy filed the compliance filing with the FERC, which provided the calculation of the excess accumulated deferred income taxes associated with the decommissioning tax position with consideration for the resolution of the tax position by the IRS. System Energy confirmed that this amount of excess accumulated deferred income taxes had already been credited to customers, and therefore concluded that no further modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement are needed to address excess accumulated deferred income taxes associated with the Tax Act.

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery

The Utility operating companies are allowed to recover fuel and purchased power costs through fuel mechanisms included in electric and gas rates that are recorded as fuel cost recovery revenues. The difference between revenues collected and the current fuel and purchased power costs is generally recorded as “Deferred fuel costs” on the Utility operating companies’ financial statements. The table below shows the amount of deferred fuel costs as of December 31, 2022 and 2021 that Entergy expects to recover (or return to customers) through fuel mechanisms, subject to subsequent regulatory review.


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas (a)	$208.6	$177.6
Entergy Louisiana (b)	$327.3	$213.5
Entergy Mississippi	$143.2	$121.9
Entergy New Orleans (b)	$14.2	($3.5)
Entergy Texas	$258.1	$48.3

(a)Includes $68.9 million in 2022 and $68.8 million in 2021 of fuel and purchased power costs whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

(b)Includes $168.1 million in both years for Entergy Louisiana and $4.1 million in both years for Entergy New Orleans of fuel, purchased power, and capacity costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

Entergy Arkansas

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

Entergy Arkansas’s retail rates include an energy cost recovery rider to recover fuel and purchased energy costs in monthly customer bills. The rider utilizes the prior calendar-year energy costs and projected energy sales for the twelve-month period commencing on April 1 of each year to develop an energy cost rate, which is redetermined annually and includes a true-up adjustment reflecting the over- or under-recovery, including carrying charges, of the energy costs for the prior calendar year. The energy cost recovery rider tariff also allows an interim rate request depending upon the level of over- or under-recovery of fuel and purchased energy costs.

In January 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion with the APSC relating to its upcoming energy cost rate redetermination filing that was made in March 2014. In that motion, Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to exclude from the redetermination of its 2014 energy cost rate $65.9 million of

incremental fuel and replacement energy costs incurred in 2013 as a result of the ANO stator incident. Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to retain that amount in its deferred fuel balance, with recovery to be reviewed in a later period after more information was available regarding various claims associated with the ANO stator incident. In February 2014 the APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’s request to retain that amount in its deferred fuel balance. In July 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed for a change in rates pursuant to its formula rate plan rider. In that proceeding, the APSC approved a settlement agreement agreed upon by the parties, including a provision that requires Entergy Arkansas to initiate a regulatory proceeding for the purpose of recovering funds currently withheld from rates and related to the stator incident, including the $65.9 million of deferred fuel and purchased energy costs and costs related to the incremental oversight previously noted, subject to certain timelines and conditions set forth in the settlement agreement, including the resolution of civil litigation currently pending regarding the stator incident by the Circuit Court of Pope County, Arkansas. A trial date was established by the circuit court for March 1, 2023, but has been continued. In December 2022 the APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’s request for an additional extension of the deadline for initiating a regulatory proceeding for the purpose of recovering funds related to the stator incident to no later than sixty days after the circuit court issues a final order in the civil litigation proceedings. See the “ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews” section in Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of the ANO stator incident.

In March 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase in the rate from $0.01164 per kWh to $0.01547 per kWh. The APSC staff filed testimony in March 2017 recommending that the redetermined rate be implemented with the first billing cycle of April 2017 under the normal operation of the tariff. Accordingly, the redetermined rate went into effect on March 31, 2017 pursuant to the tariff. In July 2017 the Arkansas Attorney General requested additional information to support certain of the costs included in Entergy Arkansas’s 2017 energy cost rate redetermination.

In March 2018, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase in the rate from $0.01547 per kWh to $0.01882 per kWh. The Arkansas Attorney General filed a response to Entergy Arkansas’s annual redetermination filing requesting that the APSC suspend the proposed tariff to investigate the amount of the redetermination or, alternatively, to allow recovery subject to refund. Among the reasons the Attorney General cited for suspension were questions pertaining to how Entergy Arkansas forecasted sales and potential implications of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Entergy Arkansas replied to the Attorney General’s filing and stated that, to the extent there are questions pertaining to its load forecasting or the operation of the energy cost recovery rider, those issues exceed the scope of the instant rate redetermination. Entergy Arkansas also stated that potential effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are appropriately considered in the APSC’s separate proceeding regarding potential implications of the tax law. The APSC general staff filed a reply to the Attorney General’s filing and agreed that Entergy Arkansas’s filing complied with the terms of the energy cost recovery rider. The redetermined rate became effective with the first billing cycle of April 2018. Subsequently in April 2018 the APSC issued an order declining to suspend Entergy Arkansas’s energy cost recovery rider rate and declining to require further investigation at that time of the issues suggested by the Attorney General in the proceeding. Following a period of discovery, the Attorney General filed a supplemental response in October 2018 raising new issues with Entergy Arkansas’s March 2018 rate redetermination and asserting that $45.7 million of the increase should be collected subject to refund pending further investigation. Entergy Arkansas filed to dismiss the Attorney General’s supplemental response, the APSC general staff filed a motion to strike the Attorney General’s filing, and the Attorney General filed a supplemental response disputing Entergy Arkansas and the APSC staff’s filing. Applicable APSC rules and processes authorize its general staff to initiate periodic audits of Entergy Arkansas’s energy cost recovery rider. In late-2018 the APSC general staff notified Entergy Arkansas it has initiated an audit of the 2017 fuel costs. The time in which the audit will be complete is uncertain at this time.

In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01462 per kWh to $0.01052 per kWh. The redetermined rate became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2020 through the normal operation of the tariff.

In March 2021, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01052 per kWh to $0.00959 per kWh. The redetermined rate calculation also included an adjustment to account for a portion of the increased fuel costs resulting from the February 2021 winter storms. The redetermined rate became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2021 through the normal operation of the tariff.

In March 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase from $0.00959 per kWh to $0.01785 per kWh. The primary reason for the rate increase is a large under-recovered balance as a result of higher natural gas prices in 2021, particularly in the fourth quarter 2021. At the request of the APSC general staff, Entergy Arkansas deferred its request for recovery of $32 million from the under-recovery related to the 2021 February winter storms until the 2023 energy cost rate redetermination, unless a request for an interim adjustment to the energy cost recovery rider is necessary. This resulted in a redetermined rate of $0.016390 per kWh, which became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2022 through the normal operation of the tariff. In February 2023 the APSC issued orders initiating proceedings with the utilities to address the prudence of costs incurred and appropriate cost allocation of the 2021 February winter storms. With respect to any prudence review of Entergy Arkansas fuel costs, as part of the APSC’s draft report issued in its 2021 February winter storm investigation docket, the APSC included findings that the load shedding plans of the investor-owned utilities and some cooperatives were appropriate and comprehensive, and, further, that Entergy Arkansas’s emergency plan was comprehensive and had a multilayered approach supported by a system-wide response plan, which is considered an industry standard.

Entergy Louisiana

Entergy Louisiana recovers electric fuel and purchased power costs for the billing month based upon the level of such costs incurred two months prior to the billing month. Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustments include estimates for the billing month adjusted by a surcharge or credit that arises from an annual reconciliation of fuel costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges.

In February 2021, Entergy Louisiana incurred extraordinary fuel costs associated with the February 2021 winter storms. To mitigate the effect of these costs on customer bills, in March 2021, Entergy Louisiana requested and the LPSC approved the deferral and recovery of $166 million in incremental fuel costs over five months beginning in April 2021. The incremental fuel costs remain subject to review for reasonableness and eligibility for recovery through the fuel adjustment clause mechanism. The final amount of incremental fuel costs is subject to change through the resettlement process. At its April 2021 meeting, the LPSC authorized its staff to review the prudence of the February 2021 fuel costs incurred by all LPSC-jurisdictional utilities, including both gas and electric utilities. At its June 2021 meeting, the LPSC approved the hiring of consultants to assist its staff in this review. In May 2022 the LPSC staff issued an audit report regarding Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause charges (for its electric operations) recommending no financial disallowances, but including several prospective recommendations. Responsive testimony was filed by one intervenor and the parties agreed to suspend any procedural schedule and move toward settlement discussions to close the matter. Also in May 2022 the LPSC staff issued an audit report regarding Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment charges (for its gas operations) that did not propose any financial disallowances. The LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana submitted a joint report on the audit report and draft order to the LPSC concluding that Entergy Louisiana’s gas distribution operations and fuel costs were not significantly adversely affected by the February 2021 winter storms and the resulting increase in natural gas prices. The LPSC issued an order approving the joint report in October 2022.

In March 2021 the LPSC staff provided notice of an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment clause filings covering the period January 2018 through December 2020. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment clause for that period. Discovery is ongoing, and no audit report has been filed.

To mitigate high electric bills, primarily driven by high summer usage and elevated gas prices, Entergy Louisiana has deferred approximately $225 million of fuel expense incurred in April, May, June, July, August, and September 2022 (as reflected on June, July, August, September, October, and November 2022 bills). These deferrals were included in the over/under calculation of the fuel adjustment clause, which is intended to recover the full amount of the costs included on a rolling twelve-month basis.

Entergy Mississippi

Entergy Mississippi’s rate schedules include an energy cost recovery rider that is adjusted annually to reflect accumulated over- or under-recoveries. Entergy Mississippi’s fuel cost recoveries are subject to annual audits conducted pursuant to the authority of the MPSC.

In November 2019, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation included $39.6 million of prior over-recovery flowing back to customers beginning February 2020. Entergy Mississippi’s balance in its deferred fuel account did not decrease as expected after implementation of the new factor. In an effort to assist customers during the COVID-19 pandemic, in May 2020, Entergy Mississippi requested an interim adjustment to the energy cost recovery rider to credit approximately $50 million from the over-recovered balance in the deferred fuel account to customers over four consecutive billing months. The MPSC approved this interim adjustment in May 2020 effective for June through September 2020 bills.

In November 2020, 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 an over-recovery of approximately $24.4 million as of September 30, 2020. In January 2021 the MPSC approved the proposed energy cost factor effective for February 2021 bills.

In November 2021, 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 an under-recovery of approximately $80.6 million as of September 30, 2021. In December 2021, at the request of the MPSC, Entergy Mississippi submitted a proposal to mitigate the impact of rising fuel costs on customer bills during 2022. Entergy Mississippi proposed that the deferred fuel balance as of December 31, 2021, which was $121.9 million, be amortized over three years, and that the MPSC authorize Entergy Mississippi to apply its weighted-average cost of capital as the carrying cost for the unamortized fuel balance. In January 2022 the MPSC approved the amortization of $100 million of the deferred fuel balance over two years and authorized Entergy Mississippi to apply its weighted-average cost of capital as the carrying cost for the unamortized fuel balance. The MPSC approved the proposed energy cost factor effective for February 2022 bills.

See “Complaints Against System Energy - System Energy Settlement with the MPSC” below for discussion of the settlement agreement filed with the FERC in June 2022. The settlement, which was contingent upon FERC approval, provides for a refund of $235 million from System Energy to Entergy Mississippi. In July 2022 the MPSC directed the disbursement of settlement proceeds, ordering Entergy Mississippi to provide a one-time $80 bill credit to each of its approximately 460,000 retail customers to be effective during the September 2022 billing cycle, and to apply the remaining proceeds to Entergy Mississippi’s under-recovered deferred fuel balance. In accordance with the MPSC’s directive, Entergy Mississippi provided approximately $36.7 million in customer bill credits as a result of the settlement. In November 2022, Entergy Mississippi applied the remaining settlement proceeds in the amount of approximately $198.3 million to Entergy Mississippi’s under-recovered deferred fuel balance. In November 2022 the FERC issued an order approving the System Energy settlement with the MPSC.

Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel balance of approximately $291.7 million under the energy cost recovery rider as of July 31, 2022, along with an over-recovery balance of $51.1 million under the power management rider. Without further action, Entergy Mississippi anticipated a year-end deferred fuel balance of approximately $200 million after application of a portion of the System Energy settlement proceeds, as discussed

above. In September 2022, Entergy Mississippi filed for interim adjustments under both the energy cost recovery rider and the power management rider. Entergy Mississippi proposed five monthly incremental adjustments to the net energy cost factor designed to collect the under-recovered fuel balance as of July 31, 2022 and to reflect the recovery of a higher natural gas price. Entergy Mississippi also proposed five monthly incremental adjustments to the power management adjustment factor designed to flow through to customers the over-recovered power management rider balance as of July 31, 2022. In October 2022 the MPSC approved modified interim adjustments to Entergy Mississippi’s energy cost recovery rider and power management rider. The MPSC approved dividing the energy cost recovery rider interim adjustment into two components that would allow Entergy Mississippi to 1) recover a natural gas fuel rate that is better aligned with current prices and 2) recover the estimated under-recovered deferred fuel balance as of September 30, 2022 over a period of 20 months. The MPSC approved six monthly incremental adjustments to the net energy cost factor designed to reflect the recovery of a higher natural gas price. The MPSC also approved six monthly incremental adjustments to the power management adjustment factor designed to flow through to customers the over-recovered power management rider balance. In accordance with the order of the MPSC, Entergy Mississippi did not file an annual redetermination of the energy cost recovery rider or the power management rider in November 2022. Entergy Mississippi’s November 2023 annual redetermination will not reflect any part of the estimated under-recovered deferred fuel balance as of September 30, 2022; it will only reflect any over/under recovery that accumulates after September 2022. The November 2024 annual redetermination will include the total deferred fuel balance, including any over- or under-recovery of the deferred fuel balance as of September 30, 2022.

Entergy New Orleans

Entergy New Orleans’s electric rate schedules include a fuel adjustment tariff designed to reflect no more than targeted fuel and purchased power costs, adjusted by a surcharge or credit for deferred fuel expense arising from the monthly reconciliation of actual fuel and purchased power costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges.

Entergy New Orleans’s gas rate schedules include a purchased gas adjustment to reflect estimated gas costs for the billing month, adjusted by a surcharge or credit similar to that included in the electric fuel adjustment clause, including carrying charges.

Entergy Texas

Entergy Texas’s rate schedules include a fixed fuel factor to recover fuel and purchased power costs, including interest, not recovered in base rates. Semi-annual revisions of the fixed fuel factor are made in March and September based on the market price of natural gas and changes in fuel mix. The amounts collected under Entergy Texas’s fixed fuel factor and any interim surcharge or refund are subject to fuel reconciliation proceedings before the PUCT. A fuel reconciliation is required to be filed at least once every three years and outside of a base rate case filing.

In September 2019, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period from April 2016 through March 2019. During the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas incurred approximately $1.6 billion in Texas jurisdictional eligible fuel and purchased power expenses, net of certain revenues credited to such expenses and other adjustments. Entergy Texas estimated an under-recovery balance of approximately $25.8 million, including interest, which Entergy Texas requested authority to carry over as the beginning balance for the subsequent reconciliation period beginning April 2019. In March 2020 an intervenor filed testimony proposing that the PUCT disallow: (1) $2 million in replacement power costs associated with generation outages during the reconciliation period; and (2) $24.4 million associated with the operation of the Spindletop natural gas storage facility during the reconciliation period. In April 2020, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony refuting all points raised by the intervenor. In June 2020 the parties filed a stipulation and settlement agreement, which included a $1.2 million disallowance not associated with any particular issue raised by any party. The PUCT approved the settlement in August 2020.

In July 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application with the PUCT to implement an interim fuel refund of $25.5 million, including interest. Entergy Texas proposed that the interim fuel refund be implemented beginning with the first August 2020 billing cycle over a three-month period for smaller customers and in a lump sum amount in the billing month of August 2020 for transmission-level customers. The interim fuel refund was approved in July 2020, and Entergy Texas began refunds in August 2020.

In May 2022, Entergy Texas filed an application with the PUCT to implement an interim fuel surcharge to collect the cumulative under-recovery of approximately $51.7 million, including interest, of fuel and purchased power costs incurred from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021. The under-recovery balance is primarily attributable to the impacts of Winter Storm Uri, including historically high natural gas prices, partially offset by settlements received by Entergy Texas from MISO related to Hurricane Laura. Entergy Texas proposed that the interim fuel surcharge be assessed over a period of six months beginning with the first billing cycle after the PUCT issues a final order, but no later than the first billing cycle of September 2022. Also in May 2022, the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. In July 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed settlement resolving all issues in the proceeding. In addition, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a motion to admit evidence, to approve interim rates as requested in the initial application, and to remand the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the unopposed settlement. In August 2022 the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting Entergy Texas’s motion, approving interim rates effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022, and remanding the case to the PUCT for final approval. The interim fuel surcharge was approved by the PUCT in January 2023.

In September 2022, Entergy Texas filed an application with the PUCT to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period from April 2019 through March 2022. During the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas incurred approximately $1.7 billion in eligible fuel and purchased power expenses, net of certain revenues credited to such expenses and other adjustments. As of the end of the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas’s cumulative under-recovery balance was approximately $103.1 million, including interest, which Entergy Texas requested authority to carry over as the beginning balance for the subsequent reconciliation period beginning April 2022, pending future surcharges or refunds as approved by the PUCT. In November 2022 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings and the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings adopted a procedural schedule setting a hearing on the merits for May 2023. A PUCT decision is expected in September 2023.

Retail Rate Proceedings

Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas)

Retail Rates

2020 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2020 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2021 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the projected year 2021, as amended through subsequent filings in the proceeding, and a netting adjustment for the historical year 2019. The filing showed that Entergy Arkansas’s earned rate of return on common equity for the 2021 projected year is 8.22% resulting in a revenue deficiency of $64.3 million. The earned rate of return on common equity for the 2019 historical year was 9.07% resulting in a $23.9 million netting adjustment. The total proposed revenue change for the 2021 projected year and 2019 historical year netting adjustment was $88.2 million. By operation of the formula rate plan, Entergy Arkansas’s recovery of the revenue requirement is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement in this filing exceeded the constraint, the resulting increase was limited to $74.3 million. As part of the formula rate plan tariff the calculation for the revenue constraint was updated based on actual revenues which had the effect of reducing the initially-proposed

$74.3 million revenue requirement increase to $72.6 million. In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC a unanimous settlement agreement reached with the other parties that resolved all but one issue. As a result of the settlement agreement, Entergy Arkansas’s requested revenue increase was $68.4 million, including a $44.5 million increase for the projected 2021 year and a $23.9 million netting adjustment. The remaining issue litigated concerned the methodology used to calculate the netting adjustment within the formula rate plan. In December 2020 the APSC issued an order rejecting the netting adjustment method used by Entergy Arkansas. Applying the approach ordered by the APSC changed the netting adjustment for the 2019 historical year from a $23.9 million deficiency to $43.5 million excess. Overall, the decision reduced Entergy Arkansas’s revenue adjustment for 2021 to $1 million. In December 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition for rehearing of the APSC’s decision in the 2020 formula rate plan proceeding regarding the 2019 netting adjustment, and in January 2021 the APSC granted further consideration of Entergy Arkansas’s petition. Based on the progress of the proceeding at that point, in December 2020, Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory liability of $43.5 million to reflect the netting adjustment for 2019, as included in the APSC’s December 2020 order, which would be returned to customers in 2021. Entergy Arkansas also requested an extension of the formula rate plan rider for a second five-year term. In March 2021 the Arkansas Governor signed HB1662 into law (Act 404). Act 404 clarified aspects of the original formula rate plan legislation enacted in 2015, including with respect to the extension of a formula rate plan, the methodology for the netting adjustment, and debt and equity levels; it also reaffirmed the customer protections of the original formula rate plan legislation, including the cap on annual formula rate plan rate changes. Pursuant to Act 404, Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan rider was extended for a second five-year term. Entergy Arkansas filed a compliance tariff in its formula rate plan docket in April 2021 to effectuate the netting provisions of Act 404, which reflected a net change in required formula rate plan rider revenue of $39.8 million, effective with the first billing cycle of May 2021. In April 2021 the APSC issued an order approving the compliance tariff and recognizing the formula rate plan extension. Also in April 2021, Entergy Arkansas filed for approval of modifications to the formula rate plan tariff incorporating the provisions in Act 404, and the APSC approved the tariff modifications in April 2021. Given the APSC general staff’s support for the expedited approval of these filings by the APSC, Entergy Arkansas supported an amendment to Act 404 to achieve a reduced return on equity from 9.75% to 9.65% to apply for years applicable to the extension term; that amendment was signed by the Arkansas Governor in April 2021 and is now Act 894. Based on the APSC’s order issued in April 2021, in the first quarter 2021, Entergy Arkansas reversed the remaining regulatory liability for the netting adjustment for 2019. In June 2021, Entergy Arkansas filed another compliance tariff in its formula rate plan proceeding to effectuate the additional provisions of Act 894, and the APSC approved the second compliance tariff filing in July 2021.

2021 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2021, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2021 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2022 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the projected year 2022 and a netting adjustment for the historical year 2020. The filing showed that Entergy Arkansas’s earned rate of return on common equity for the 2022 projected year is 7.65% resulting in a revenue deficiency of $89.2 million. The earned rate of return on common equity for the 2020 historical year was 7.92% resulting in a $19.4 million netting adjustment. The total proposed revenue change for the 2022 projected year and 2020 historical year netting adjustment is $108.7 million. By operation of the formula rate plan, Entergy Arkansas’s recovery of the revenue requirement is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement in this filing exceeded the constraint, the resulting increase is limited to $72.4 million. In October 2021, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC a settlement agreement reached with other parties resolving all issues in the proceeding. As a result of the settlement agreement, the total proposed revenue change is $82.2 million, including a $62.8 million increase for the projected 2022 year and a $19.4 million netting adjustment. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement exceeded the constraint, the resulting increase is limited to $72.1 million. In December 2021 the APSC approved the settlement as being in the public interest and approved Entergy Arkansas’s compliance tariff effective with the first billing cycle of January 2022.

2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2022 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2023 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the projected year 2023 and a netting adjustment for the historical year 2021. The filing showed that Entergy Arkansas’s earned rate of return on common equity for the 2023 projected year is 7.40% resulting in a revenue deficiency of $104.8 million. The earned rate of return on common equity for the 2021 historical year was 8.38% resulting in a $15.2 million netting adjustment. The total proposed revenue change for the 2023 projected year and 2021 historical year netting adjustment is $119.9 million. By operation of the formula rate plan, Entergy Arkansas’s recovery of the revenue requirement was subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement in this filing exceeded the constraint, the resulting increase was limited to $79.3 million. In October 2022 other parties filed their testimony recommending various adjustments to Entergy Arkansas’s overall proposed revenue deficiency, and Entergy Arkansas filed a response including an update to actual revenues through August 2022, which raised the constraint to $79.8 million. In November 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC a settlement agreement reached with other parties resolving all issues in the proceeding. As a result of the settlement agreement, the total revenue change was $102.8 million, including a $87.7 million increase for the 2023 projected year and a $15.2 million netting adjustment. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement exceeded the constraint, the resulting increase was limited to $79.8 million. In December 2022 the APSC approved the settlement agreement as being in the public interest and approved Entergy Arkansas’s compliance tariff effective with the first billing cycle of January 2023.

COVID-19 Orders

In April 2020, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the APSC issued an order requiring utilities, to the extent they had not already done so, to suspend service disconnections during the remaining pendency of the Arkansas Governor’s emergency declaration or until the APSC rescinds the directive. The order also authorized utilities to establish a regulatory asset to record costs resulting from the suspension of service disconnections, directed that in future proceedings the APSC will consider whether the request for recovery of these regulatory assets is reasonable and necessary, and required utilities to track and report the costs and any savings directly attributable to suspension of disconnects. In May 2020 the APSC approved Entergy Arkansas expanding deferred payment agreements to assist customers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Quarterly reporting began in August 2020 and the APSC ordered additional reporting in October 2020 regarding utilities’ transitional plans for ending the moratorium on service disconnects. In March 2021 the APSC issued an order confirming the lifting of the moratorium on service disconnects effective in May 2021. In August 2021 the APSC general staff filed a report recommending that utilities with a formula rate plan discontinue capturing any additional direct costs and savings as a regulatory asset and seek cost recovery through the formula rate plan. The APSC general staff further recommended that uncollectible amounts should be determined as of the end of its write-off period, approximately December 2021, and recovered in the next formula rate plan filing over one year. In November 2021 the APSC found the APSC general staff’s recommendation to be premature and asked utilities to report on the continued need for a regulatory asset. Entergy Arkansas reported a continued need for a regulatory asset due to a variety of factors including the unusually long terms of the customer delayed payment agreements. As of December 31, 2022, Entergy Arkansas had a regulatory asset of $39 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)

Retail Rates - Electric

2017 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In June 2018, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2017 calendar year operations. The 2017 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on equity of 8.16%, due in large part to revenue-neutral realignments to other recovery mechanisms. Without these realignments, the evaluation report

produces an earned return on equity of 9.88% and a resulting base rider formula rate plan revenue increase of $4.8 million. Excluding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act credits provided for by the tax reform adjustment mechanisms, total formula rate plan revenues were further increased by a total of $98 million as a result of the evaluation report due to adjustments to the additional capacity and MISO cost recovery mechanisms of the formula rate plan, and implementation of the transmission recovery mechanism. In August 2018, Entergy Louisiana filed a supplemental formula rate plan evaluation report to reflect changes from the 2016 test year formula rate plan proceedings, a decrease to the transmission recovery mechanism to reflect lower actual capital additions, and a decrease to evaluation period expenses to reflect the terms of a new power sales agreement. Based on the August 2018 update, Entergy Louisiana recognized a total decrease in formula rate plan revenue of approximately $17.6 million. Results of the updated 2017 evaluation report filing were implemented with the September 2018 billing month subject to refund and review by the LPSC staff and intervenors. In accordance with the terms of the formula rate plan, in September 2018 the LPSC staff and intervenors submitted their responses to Entergy Louisiana’s original formula rate plan evaluation report and supplemental compliance updates. The LPSC staff asserted objections/reservations regarding (1) Entergy Louisiana’s proposed rate adjustments associated with the return of excess accumulated deferred income taxes pursuant to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the treatment of accumulated deferred income taxes related to reductions of rate base; (2) Entergy Louisiana’s reservation regarding treatment of a regulatory asset related to certain special orders by the LPSC; and (3) test year expenses billed from Entergy Services to Entergy Louisiana. Intervenors also objected to Entergy Louisiana’s treatment of the regulatory asset related to certain special orders by the LPSC. In August 2021 the LPSC staff issued a letter updating its objections/reservations for the 2017 test year formula rate plan evaluation report. In its letter, the LPSC staff reiterated its original objections/reservations pertaining to Entergy Louisiana’s proposed rate adjustments associated with the return of excess accumulated deferred income taxes pursuant to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the treatment of accumulated deferred income taxes related to reductions of rate base, specifically how the accumulated deferred income taxes associated with uncertain tax positions have been accounted for, and test year expenses billed from Entergy Services to Entergy Louisiana. The LPSC staff further reserved its rights for future proceedings and to dispute future proposed adjustments to the 2017 test year formula rate plan evaluation report. The LPSC staff withdrew all other objections/reservations. A procedural schedule has not yet been established to resolve these issues.

Entergy Louisiana also included in its filing a presentation of an initial proposal to combine the legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana residential rates, which combination, if approved, would be accomplished on a revenue-neutral basis intended not to affect the rates of other customer classes.

2018 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2018 calendar year operations. The 2018 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on common equity of 10.61% leading to a base rider formula rate plan revenue decrease of $8.9 million. While base rider formula rate plan revenue decreased as a result of this filing, overall formula rate plan revenues increased by approximately $118.7 million. This outcome was primarily driven by a reduction to the credits previously flowed through the tax reform adjustment mechanism and an increase in the transmission recovery mechanism, partially offset by reductions in the additional capacity mechanism revenue requirements and extraordinary cost items. The filing is subject to review by the LPSC. Resulting rates were implemented in September 2019, subject to refund.

Entergy Louisiana also included in its filing a presentation of an initial proposal to combine the legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana residential rates, which combination, if approved, would be accomplished on a revenue-neutral basis intended not to affect the rates of other customer classes.

Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC staff filed its report of objections/reservations in accordance with the applicable provisions of the formula rate plan. In its report the LPSC staff re-urged reservations with respect to the outstanding issues from the 2017 test year formula rate plan filing and disputed the inclusion of certain affiliate costs for test years 2017 and 2018. The LPSC staff objected to Entergy Louisiana’s proposal to combine residential rates but proposed the setting of a status conference to establish a procedural

schedule to more fully address the issue. The LPSC staff also reserved its right to object to the treatment of the sale of the Willow Glen Power Station reflected in the evaluation report and to the August 2019 compliance update, which was made primarily to update the capital additions reflected in the formula rate plan’s transmission recovery mechanism, based on limited time to review it. Additionally, since the completion of certain transmission projects, the LPSC staff issued supplemental data requests addressing the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s expenditures in connection with those projects. Entergy Louisiana responded to all such requests. In August 2021 the LPSC staff issued a letter updating its objections/reservations for the 2018 test year formula rate plan evaluation report. In its letter, the LPSC staff reiterated its original objection/reservation pertaining to test year expenses billed from Entergy Services to Entergy Louisiana and outstanding issues from the 2017 test year formula rate plan evaluation report. The LPSC staff withdrew all other objections/reservations.

Commercial operation at Lake Charles Power Station commenced in March 2020. In March 2020, Entergy Louisiana filed an update to its 2018 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the estimated first-year revenue requirement of $108 million associated with the Lake Charles Power Station. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of April 2020.

In an effort to narrow the remaining issues in formula rate plan test years 2017 and 2018, Entergy Louisiana provided notice to the parties in October 2020 that it was withdrawing its request to combine residential rates. Entergy Louisiana noted that the withdrawal is without prejudice to Entergy Louisiana’s right to seek to combine residential rates in a future proceeding.

2019 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2020, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2019 calendar year operations. The 2019 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on common equity of 9.66%. As such, no change to base rider formula rate plan revenue is required. Although base rider formula rate plan revenue did not change as a result of this filing, overall formula rate plan revenues increased by approximately $103 million. This outcome is driven by the removal of prior year credits associated with the sale of the Willow Glen Power Station and an increase in the transmission recovery mechanism. Also contributing to the overall change was an increase in legacy formula rate plan revenue requirements driven by legacy Entergy Louisiana capacity cost true-ups and higher annualized legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana revenues due to higher billing determinants, offset by reductions in MISO cost recovery mechanism and tax reform adjustment mechanism revenue requirements. In August 2020 the LPSC staff submitted a list of items for which it needs additional information to confirm the accuracy and compliance of the 2019 test year evaluation report. The LPSC staff objected to a proposed revenue neutral adjustment regarding a certain rider as being beyond the scope of permitted formula rate plan adjustments. Rates reflected in the May 2020 filing, with the exception of a revenue neutral rider adjustment, and as updated in an August 2020 filing, were implemented in September 2020, subject to refund. Entergy Louisiana is in the process of providing additional information and details on the May 2020 filing as requested by the LPSC staff. In August 2021 the LPSC staff issued a letter updating its objections/reservations for the 2019 test year formula rate plan filing. In its letter, the LPSC staff disputes Entergy Louisiana’s exclusion of approximately $251 thousand of interest income allocated from Entergy Operations and Entergy Services to Entergy Louisiana to the extent that there are other adjustments that would move Entergy Louisiana out of the formula rate plan deadband. The LPSC staff reserved the right to further contest the issue in future proceedings. The LPSC staff further reserved outstanding issues from the 2017 and 2018 formula rate plan evaluation reports and withdrew all other remaining objections/reservations.

In November 2020, Entergy Louisiana accepted ownership of the Washington Parish Energy Center and filed an update to its 2019 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the estimated first-year revenue requirement of $35 million associated with the Washington Parish Energy Center. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of December 2020. In January 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an update to its 2019 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the implementation of a scheduled step-up in its nuclear decommissioning revenue requirement and a true-up for under-collections of nuclear decommissioning

expenses. The total rate adjustment increased formula rate plan revenues by approximately $1.2 million. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of February 2021.

Request for Extension and Modification of Formula Rate Plan

In May 2020, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its application for authority to extend its formula rate plan. In its application, Entergy Louisiana sought to maintain a 9.8% return on equity, with a bandwidth of 60 basis points above and below the midpoint, with a first-year midpoint reset. The parties reached a settlement in April 2021 regarding Entergy Louisiana’s proposed formula rate plan extension. In May 2021 the LPSC approved the uncontested settlement. Key terms of the settlement include: a three year term (test years 2020, 2021, and 2022) covering a rate-effective period of September 2021 through August 2024; a 9.50% return on equity, with a smaller, 50 basis point deadband above and below (9.0%-10.0%); elimination of sharing if earnings are outside the deadband; a $63 million rate increase for test year 2020 (exclusive of riders); continuation of existing riders (transmission, additional capacity, etc.); addition of a distribution recovery mechanism permitting $225 million per year of distribution investment above a baseline level to be recovered dollar for dollar; modification of the tax mechanism to allow timely rate changes in the event the federal corporate income tax rate is changed from 21%; a cumulative rate increase limit of $70 million (exclusive of riders) for test years 2021 and 2022; and deferral of up to $7 million per year in 2021 and 2022 of expenditures on vegetation management for outside of right of way hazard trees.

2020 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In June 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2020 calendar year operations. The 2020 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on common equity of 8.45%, with a base formula rate plan revenue increase of $63 million. Certain reductions in formula rate plan revenue driven by lower sales volumes, reductions in capacity cost and net MISO cost, and higher credits resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act offset the base formula rate plan revenue increase, leading to a net increase in formula rate plan revenue of $50.7 million. The report also included multiple new adjustments to account for, among other things, the calculation of distribution recovery mechanism revenues. The effects of the changes to total formula rate plan revenue were different for each legacy company, primarily due to differences in the legacy companies’ capacity cost changes, including the effect of true-ups. Legacy Entergy Louisiana formula rate plan revenues increased by $27 million and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana formula rate plan revenues increased by $23.7 million. Subject to refund and LPSC review, the resulting changes became effective for bills rendered during the first billing cycle of September 2021. Discovery commenced in the proceeding. In August 2021, Entergy Louisiana submitted an update to its evaluation report to account for various changes. Relative to the June 2021 filing, the total formula rate plan revenue increased by $14.2 million to an updated total of $64.9 million. Legacy Entergy Louisiana formula rate plan revenues increased by $32.8 million and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana formula rate plan revenues increased by $32.1 million. The results of the 2020 test year evaluation report bandwidth calculation were unchanged as there was no change in the earned return on common equity of 8.45%. In September 2021 the LPSC staff filed a letter with a general statement of objections/reservations because it had not completed its review and indicated it would update the letter once its review was complete. Should the parties be unable to resolve any objections, those issues will be set for hearing, with recovery of the associated costs subject to refund.

2021 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2021 calendar year operations. The 2021 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on common equity of 8.33%, with a base formula rate plan revenue increase of $65.3 million. Other increases in formula rate plan revenue driven by reductions in Tax Cut and Jobs Act credits and additions to transmission and distribution plant in service reflected through the transmission recovery mechanism and distribution recovery mechanism are partly offset by an increase in net MISO revenues, leading to a net increase in formula rate plan revenue of $152.9 million. The effects of the changes to total formula rate plan revenue are different for each legacy company, primarily due to differences in the

legacy companies’ capacity cost changes, including the effect of true-ups. Legacy Entergy Louisiana formula rate plan revenues increased by $86 million and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana formula rate plan revenues increased by $66.9 million. In August 2022 the LPSC staff filed a list of objections/reservations, including outstanding issues from the test years 2017-2020 formula rate plan filings, utilizing the extraordinary cost mechanism to address one-time changes such as state tax rate changes, and failing to include an adjustment for revenues not received as a result of Hurricane Ida. Subject to refund and LPSC review, the resulting changes to formula rate plan revenues became effective for bills rendered during the first billing cycle of September 2022.

Investigation of Costs Billed by Entergy Services

In November 2018 the LPSC issued a notice of proceeding initiating an investigation into costs incurred by Entergy Services that are included in the retail rates of Entergy Louisiana. As stated in the notice of proceeding, the LPSC observed an increase in capital construction-related costs incurred by Entergy Services. Discovery was issued and included efforts to seek highly detailed information on a broad range of matters unrelated to the scope of the audit. There has been no further activity in the investigation since May 2019.

COVID-19 Orders

In April 2020 the LPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses incurred from the suspension of disconnections and collection of late fees imposed by LPSC orders associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, utilities may seek future recovery, subject to LPSC review and approval, of losses and expenses incurred due to compliance with the LPSC’s COVID-19 orders. The suspension of late fees and disconnects for non-pay was extended until the first billing cycle after July 16, 2020. In January 2021, Entergy Louisiana resumed disconnections for customers in all customer classes with past-due balances that had not made payment arrangements. Utilities seeking to recover the regulatory asset must formally petition the LPSC to do so, identifying the direct and indirect costs for which recovery is sought. Any such request is subject to LPSC review and approval. As of December 31, 2022, Entergy Louisiana had a regulatory asset of $47.8 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Retail Rates

2020 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In March 2020, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2020 test year filing and 2019 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2020 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2020 test year filing shows a $24.6 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.51% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 look-back filing compares actual 2019 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $7.3 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In accordance with the MPSC-approved revisions to the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2019 retail revenues, effective with the April 2020 billing cycle, subject to refund. In June 2020, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation that confirmed that the 2020 test year filing showed that a $23.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.51% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. Pursuant to the joint stipulation, Entergy Mississippi’s 2019 look-back filing reflected an earned return on rate base of 6.75% in calendar year 2019, which is within the look-back bandwidth. As a result, there is no change in formula rate plan revenues in the 2019 look-back filing. In June 2020 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with rates effective for the first billing cycle of July 2020. In the June 2020 order the MPSC directed Entergy Mississippi to submit revisions to its formula rate

plan to realign recovery of costs from its energy efficiency cost recovery rider to its formula rate plan. In November 2020 the MPSC approved Entergy Mississippi’s revisions to its formula rate plan providing for the realignment of energy efficiency costs to its formula rate plan, the deferral of energy efficiency expenditures into a regulatory asset, and the elimination of its energy efficiency cost recovery rider effective with the January 2022 billing cycle.

2021 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In March 2021, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2021 test year filing and 2020 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2020 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2021 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2021 test year filing shows a $95.4 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.69% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The change in formula rate plan revenues, however, is capped at 4% of retail revenues, which equates to a revenue change of $44.3 million. The 2021 evaluation report also includes $3.9 million in demand side management costs for which the MPSC approved realignment of recovery from the energy efficiency rider to the formula rate plan. These costs are not subject to the 4% cap and result in a total change in formula rate plan revenues of $48.2 million. The 2020 look-back filing compares actual 2020 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $16.8 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In addition, the 2020 look-back filing includes an interim capacity adjustment true-up for the Choctaw Generating Station, which increases the look-back interim rate adjustment by $1.7 million. These interim rate adjustments total $18.5 million. In accordance with the provisions of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $22.1 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2020 retail revenues, effective with the April 2021 billing cycle, subject to refund, pending a final MPSC order. The $3.9 million of demand side management costs and the Choctaw Generating Station true-up of $1.7 million, which are not subject to the 2% cap of 2020 retail revenues, were included in the April 2021 rate adjustments.

In June 2021, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation that confirmed the 2021 test year filing that resulted in a total rate increase of $48.2 million. Pursuant to the joint stipulation, Entergy Mississippi’s 2020 look-back filing reflected an earned return on rate base of 6.12% in calendar year 2020, which is below the look-back bandwidth, resulting in a $17.5 million increase in formula rate plan revenues on an interim basis through June 2022. This includes $1.7 million related to the Choctaw Generating Station and $3.7 million of COVID-19 non-bad debt expenses. See “COVID-19 Orders” below for additional discussion of provisions of the joint stipulation related to COVID-19 expenses. In June 2021 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with rates effective for the first billing cycle of July 2021. In June 2021, Entergy Mississippi recorded regulatory credits of $19.9 million to reflect the effects of the joint stipulation.

2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In March 2022, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2022 test year filing and 2021 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2021 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2022 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2022 test year filing shows a $69 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.70% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The change in formula rate plan revenues, however, is capped at 4% of retail revenues, which equates to a revenue change of $48.6 million. The 2021 look-back filing compares actual 2021 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $34.5 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In fourth quarter 2021, Entergy Mississippi recorded a regulatory asset of $19 million to reflect the then-current estimate in connection with the look-back feature of the formula rate plan. In accordance with the provisions of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2021 retail revenues, effective in April 2022.

In June 2022, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation that confirmed the 2022 test year filing that resulted in a total rate increase of $48.6 million. Pursuant to the joint stipulation, Entergy Mississippi’s 2021 look-back filing reflected an earned return on rate base of 5.99% in calendar year 2021, which is below the look-back bandwidth, resulting in a $34.3 million increase in the formula rate plan revenues on an interim basis through June 2023. In July 2022 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with rates effective in August 2022. In July 2022, Entergy Mississippi recorded regulatory credits of $22.6 million to reflect the effects of the joint stipulation. In August 2022 an intervenor filed a statutorily-authorized direct appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court seeking review of the MPSC’s July 2022 order approving the joint stipulation confirming Entergy Mississippi’s 2022 formula rate plan filing. The rates that went into effect in August 2022 are not stayed or otherwise impacted while the appeal is pending.

In July 2022 the MPSC directed Entergy Mississippi to flow $14.1 million of the power management rider over-recovery balance to customers beginning in August 2022 through December 2022 to mitigate the bill impact of the increase in formula rate plan revenues.

2023 Formula Rate Plan Filing

Entergy Mississippi plans to file its look-back evaluation report in March 2023 that will compare actual 2022 results to the performance-adjusted allowed return on rate base. In fourth quarter 2022, Entergy Mississippi recorded a regulatory asset of $18.2 million in connection with the look-back feature of the formula rate plan to reflect that the 2022 estimated earned return was below the formula bandwidth.

COVID-19 Orders

In March 2020 the MPSC issued an order suspending disconnections for a period of sixty days. The MPSC extended the order on disconnections through May 26, 2020. In April 2020 the MPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to defer incremental costs and expenses associated with COVID-19 compliance and to seek future recovery through rates of the prudently incurred incremental costs and expenses. In December 2020, Entergy Mississippi resumed disconnections for commercial, industrial, and governmental customers with past-due balances that have not made payment arrangements. In January 2021, Entergy Mississippi resumed disconnecting service for residential customers with past-due balances that had not made payment arrangements. Pursuant to the June 2021 MPSC order approving Entergy Mississippi’s 2021 formula rate plan filing, Entergy Mississippi stopped deferring COVID-19 non-bad debt expenses effective December 31, 2020 and included those expenses in the look-back filing for the 2021 formula rate plan test year. In the order, the MPSC also adopted Entergy Mississippi’s quantification and methodology for calculating COVID-19 incremental bad debt expenses and authorized Entergy Mississippi to continue deferring these bad debt expenses through December 2021. Entergy Mississippi began recovery of the bad debt expense deferral resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic over a three-year period with implementation of the interim formula rate plan rates in April 2022. As of December 31, 2022, Entergy Mississippi had a remaining regulatory asset of $9.8 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans)

Retail Rates

2018 Base Rate Case

In September 2018, Entergy New Orleans filed an electric and gas base rate case with the City Council. The filing requested a 10.5% return on equity for electric operations with opportunity to earn a 10.75% return on equity through a performance adder provision of the electric formula rate plan in subsequent years under a formula rate plan and requested a 10.75% return on equity for gas operations. The filing’s major provisions included: (1) a new electric rate structure, which realigns the revenue requirement associated with capacity and long-term service agreement expense from certain existing riders to base revenue, provides for the recovery of the cost of advanced

metering infrastructure, and partially blends rates for Entergy New Orleans’s customers residing in Algiers with customers residing in the remainder of Orleans Parish through a three-year phase-in; (2) contemporaneous cost recovery riders for investments in energy efficiency/demand response, incremental changes in capacity/long-term service agreement costs, grid modernization investment, and gas infrastructure replacement investment; and (3) formula rate plans for both electric and gas operations.

In October 2019 the City Council’s Utility Committee approved a resolution for a change in electric and gas rates for consideration by the full City Council that included a 9.35% return on common equity, an equity ratio of the lesser of 50% or Entergy New Orleans’s actual equity ratio, and a total reduction in revenues that Entergy New Orleans initially estimated to be approximately $39 million ($36 million electric; $3 million gas). At its November 7, 2019 meeting, the full City Council approved the resolution that had previously been approved by the City Council’s Utility Committee. Based on the approved resolution, in the fourth quarter 2019 Entergy New Orleans recorded an accrual of $10 million that reflects the estimate of the revenue billed in 2019 to be refunded to customers in 2020 based on an August 2019 effective date for the rate decrease. Entergy New Orleans also recorded a total of $12 million in regulatory assets for rate case costs and information technology costs associated with integrating Algiers customers with Entergy New Orleans’s legacy system and records. Entergy New Orleans will also be allowed to recover $10 million of retired general plant costs over a 20-year period.

The resolution directed Entergy New Orleans to submit a compliance filing within 30 days of the date of the resolution to facilitate the eventual implementation of rates, including all necessary calculations and conforming rate schedules and riders. The electric formula rate plan rider includes, among other things, (1) a provision for forward-looking adjustments to include known and measurable changes realized up to 12 months after the evaluation period; (2) a decoupling mechanism; and (3) recognition that Entergy New Orleans is authorized to make an in-service adjustment to the formula rate plan to include the non-fuel cost of the New Orleans Power Station in rates, unless the two pending appeals in the New Orleans Power Station proceeding have not concluded. Under this circumstance, Entergy New Orleans shall be permitted to defer the New Orleans Power Station non-fuel costs, including the cost of capital, until Entergy New Orleans commences non-fuel cost recovery. After taking into account the requirements for submission of the compliance filing, the total annual revenue requirement reduction required by the resolution was refined to approximately $45 million ($42 million electric, including $29 million in rider reductions; $3 million gas). In January 2020 the City Council’s advisors found that the rates calculated by Entergy New Orleans and reflected in the December 2019 compliance filing should be implemented, except with respect to the City Council-approved energy efficiency cost recovery rider, which rider calculation should take into account events to be determined by the City Council in the future. On February 17, 2020, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an agreement in principle between Entergy New Orleans and the City Council’s advisors. On February 20, 2020, the City Council voted to approve the proposed agreement in principle and issued a resolution modifying the required treatment of certain accumulated deferred income taxes. As a result of the agreement in principle, the total annual revenue requirement reduction will be approximately $45 million ($42 million electric, including $29 million in rider reductions; and $3 million gas). Entergy New Orleans fully implemented the new rates in April 2020.

Commercial operation of the New Orleans Power Station commenced in May 2020. In accordance with the City Council resolution issued in the 2018 base rate case proceeding, Entergy New Orleans had been deferring the New Orleans Power Station non-fuel costs pending the conclusion of the appellate proceedings. In October 2020 the Louisiana Supreme Court denied all writ applications relating to the New Orleans Power Station. With those denials, Entergy New Orleans began recovering New Orleans Power Station costs in rates in November 2020. Entergy New Orleans is recovering the costs over a five-year period that began in November 2020. As of December 31, 2022, the regulatory asset for the deferral of New Orleans Power Station non-fuel costs was $2.9 million.

2020 Formula Rate Plan Filing

Entergy New Orleans’s first annual filing under the three-year formula rate plan approved by the City Council in November 2019 was originally due to be filed in April 2020. The authorized return on equity under the

approved three-year formula rate plan is 9.35% for both electric and gas operations. The City Council approved several extensions of the deadline to allow additional time to assess the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the New Orleans community, Entergy New Orleans customers, and Entergy New Orleans itself. In October 2020 the City Council approved an agreement in principle filed by Entergy New Orleans that results in Entergy New Orleans foregoing its 2020 formula rate plan filing and shifting the three-year formula rate plan to filings in 2021, 2022, and 2023. Key provisions of the agreement in principle include: changing the lower of actual equity ratio or 50% equity ratio approved in the rate case to a hypothetical capital structure of 51% equity and 49% debt for the duration of the three-year formula rate plan; changing the 2% depreciation rate for the New Orleans Power Station approved in the rate case to 3%; retention of over-recovery of $2.2 million in rider revenues; recovery of $1.4 million of certain rate case expenses outside of the earnings band; recovery of the New Orleans Solar Station costs upon commercial operation; and Entergy New Orleans’s dismissal of its 2018 rate case appeal.

2021 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2021, Entergy New Orleans submitted to the City Council its formula rate plan 2020 test year filing. The 2020 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on equity of 6.26% compared to the authorized return on equity of 9.35%. Entergy New Orleans sought approval of a $64 million rate increase based on the formula set by the City Council in the 2018 rate case. The formula resulted in an increase in authorized electric revenues of $40 million and an increase in authorized gas revenues of $18.8 million. Entergy New Orleans also sought to commence collecting $5.2 million in electric revenues and $0.3 million in gas revenues that were previously approved by the City Council for collection through the formula rate plan. The filing was subject to review by the City Council and other parties over a 75-day review period, followed by a 25-day period to resolve any disputes among the parties. In October 2021 the City Council’s advisors filed a 75-day report recommending a reduction of $10 million for electric revenues and a reduction of $4.5 million for gas revenues, along with one-time credits funded by certain electric regulatory liabilities currently held by Entergy New Orleans for customers. On October 26, 2021, Entergy New Orleans provided notice to the City Council that it intends to implement rates effective with the first billing cycle of November 2021, with such rates reflecting an amount agreed-upon by Entergy New Orleans including adjustments filed in the City Council’s 75-day report, per the approved process for formula rate plan implementation. The total formula rate plan increase implemented was $49.5 million, with an increase of $34.9 million in electric revenues and $14.6 million in gas revenues. Also, credits of $17.4 million funded by certain regulatory liabilities currently held by Entergy New Orleans for customers will be issued over a five-month period from November 2021 through March 2022. Resulting rates went into effect with the first billing cycle of November 2021 pursuant to the formula rate plan tariff.

2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In April 2022, Entergy New Orleans submitted to the City Council its formula rate plan 2021 test year filing. The 2021 test year evaluation report, subsequently updated in a July 2022 filing, produced an earned return on equity of 6.88% compared to the authorized return on equity of 9.35%. Entergy New Orleans sought approval of a $42.1 million rate increase based on the formula set by the City Council in the 2018 rate case. The formula results in an increase in authorized electric revenues of $34.1 million and an increase in authorized gas revenues of $3.3 million. Entergy New Orleans also sought to commence collecting $4.7 million in electric revenues that were previously approved by the City Council for collection through the formula rate plan. In July 2022 the City Council’s advisors issued a report seeking a reduction to Entergy New Orleans’s proposed increase of approximately $17.1 million in total for electric and gas revenues. Effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022, Entergy New Orleans implemented rates reflecting an amount agreed upon by Entergy New Orleans and the City Council including adjustments filed in the City Council’s advisors’ report, per the approved process for formula rate plan implementation. The total formula rate plan increase implemented was $24.7 million, which includes an increase of $18.2 million in electric revenues, $4.7 million in previously approved electric revenues, and an increase of $1.8 million in gas revenues. Additionally, credits of $13.9 million funded by certain

regulatory liabilities currently held by Entergy New Orleans for customers will be issued over an eight-month period beginning September 2022.

COVID-19 Orders

In March 2020, Entergy New Orleans voluntarily suspended customer disconnections for non-payment of utility bills through May 2020. Subsequently, the City Council ordered that the moratorium be extended to August 1, 2020. In May 2020 the City Council issued an accounting order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to establish a regulatory asset for incremental COVID-19-related expenses. In January 2021, Entergy New Orleans resumed disconnecting service to commercial and small business customers with past-due balances that had not made payment arrangements. In February 2021 the City Council adopted a resolution suspending residential customer disconnections for non-payment of utility bills and suspending the assessment and accumulation of late fees on residential customers with past-due balances through May 15, 2021, which was not extended by the City Council. As of December 31, 2022, Entergy New Orleans had a regulatory asset of $13.9 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of the 2022 formula rate plan filing, Entergy New Orleans will recover this regulatory asset over a five-year period beginning September 2023.

In June 2020 the City Council established the City Council Cares Program and directed Entergy New Orleans to use the approximately $7 million refund received from the Entergy Arkansas opportunity sales FERC proceeding and approximately $15 million of non-securitized storm reserves to fund this program, which was intended to provide temporary bill relief to customers who become unemployed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The program was effective July 1, 2020 and offered qualifying residential customers bill credits of $100 per month for up to four months, for a maximum of $400 in residential customer bill credits. Credits of $4.3 million were applied to customer bills under the City Council Cares Program.

Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas)

Retail Rates

2022 Base Rate Case

In July 2022, Entergy Texas filed a base rate case with the PUCT seeking a net increase in base rates of approximately $131.4 million. The base rate case was based on a 12-month test year ending December 31, 2021. Key drivers of the requested increase are changes in depreciation rates as the result of a depreciation study and an increase in the return on equity. In addition, Entergy Texas included capital additions placed into service for the period of January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2021, including those additions currently reflected in the distribution and transmission cost recovery factor riders and the generation cost recovery rider, all of which would be reset to zero as a result of this proceeding. In July 2022 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. In October 2022 intervenors filed direct testimony challenging and supporting various aspects of Entergy Texas’s rate case application. The key issues addressed included the appropriate return on equity, generation plant deactivations, depreciation rates, and proposed tariffs related to electric vehicles. In November 2022 the PUCT staff filed direct testimony addressing a similar set of issues and recommending a reduction of $50.7 million to Entergy Texas’s overall cost of service associated with the requested net increase in base rates of approximately $131.4 million. Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony in November 2022. In December 2022 the ALJs with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order adopting the parties’ joint proposals that the issue of rate case expenses be addressed at a separate hearing and at a later date, if requested by the parties, from the hearing on the merits initially scheduled for December 2022 and that issues related to electric vehicle charging infrastructure be decided exclusively on written evidence and briefing. Also in December 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a motion to abate the hearing on the merits to give parties additional time to finalize a settlement, which was approved by the ALJs with the State Office of Administrative Hearings along with an order for the parties to file monthly settlement status reports. Subsequently, the ALJs also issued an order adopting a joint proposed briefing outline and schedule with deadlines in January 2023 for the

parties to submit briefing on issues related to electric vehicle charging infrastructure, admitting evidence related to electric vehicle charging infrastructure issues, and adopting a joint proposed procedural schedule regarding rate case expenses with a hearing in March 2023, if requested. In January 2023 the parties filed initial and reply briefs addressing issues related to electric vehicle charging infrastructure. A final decision by the PUCT is expected in second quarter 2023.

Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider

In March 2020, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The amended rider was designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $23.6 million annually, or $20.4 million in incremental annual DCRF revenue beyond Entergy Texas’s then-effective DCRF rider, based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019. In May and June 2020 intervenors filed testimony recommending reductions in Entergy Texas’s annual revenue requirement of approximately $0.3 million and $4.1 million. The parties briefed the contested issues in this matter and a proposal for decision was issued in September 2020 recommending a $4.1 million revenue reduction related to non-advanced metering system meters included in the DCRF calculation. The parties filed exceptions to the proposal for decision and replies to those exceptions in September 2020. In October 2020 the PUCT issued a final order approving a $16.3 million incremental annual DCRF revenue increase, with rates effective in October 2020.

In October 2020, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The amended rider was designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $26.3 million annually, or $6.8 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Entergy Texas’s then-effective DCRF rider based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2020 and August 31, 2020. In February 2021 the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings approved Entergy Texas's agreed motion for interim rates, which went into effect in March 2021. In March 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested DCRF revenue requirement and resolving all issues in the proceeding. In May 2021 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement.

In August 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The amended rider was designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $40.2 million annually, or $13.9 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Entergy Texas’s then-effective DCRF rider based on its capital invested in distribution between September 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in December 2021. In December 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested DCRF revenue requirement and resolving all issues in the proceeding, including a motion for interim rates to take effect for usage on and after January 24, 2022. Also, in December 2021, the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting the motion for interim rates, which went into effect in January 2022, admitting evidence, and remanding the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the settlement. In March 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement.

Transmission Cost Recovery Factor (TCRF) Rider

In December 2018, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new TCRF rider. The new TCRF rider was 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. In July 2019 the PUCT granted Entergy Texas’s application as filed to begin recovery of the requested $2.7 million annual revenue requirement, rejecting opposing parties’ proposed adjustment; however, the PUCT found that the question of prudence of the actual investment costs should be determined in Entergy Texas’s next rate case similar to the procedure used for the costs recovered through the DCRF rider. In October 2019 the PUCT issued an order on a motion for rehearing, clarifying and affirming its prior order granting Entergy Texas’s application as filed. Also in October 2019 a second motion for rehearing was filed, and Entergy Texas filed a

response in opposition to the motion. The second motion for rehearing was overruled by operation of law. In December 2019, Texas Industrial Energy Consumers filed an appeal to the PUCT order in district court alleging that the PUCT erred in declining to apply a load growth adjustment.

In October 2020, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its TCRF rider. The amended rider was designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $51 million annually, or $31.6 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Entergy Texas’s then-effective TCRF rider based on its capital invested in transmission between July 1, 2019 and August 31, 2020. In March 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested TCRF revenue requirement with interim rates effective March 2021 and resolving all issues in the proceeding. In March 2021 the ALJ granted the motion for interim rates, admitted evidence, and remanded the case to the PUCT for consideration of a final order at a future open meeting. In June 2021 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement.

In October 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its TCRF rider. The amended rider was designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $66.1 million annually, or $15.1 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Energy Texas’s then-effective TCRF rider based on its capital invested in transmission between September 1, 2020 and July 31, 2021 and changes in approved transmission charges. In January 2022 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. In February 2022 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested TCRF revenue requirement with interim rates effective March 2022. In February 2022 the ALJ granted the motion for interim rates, admitted evidence, and remanded the case to the PUCT for consideration of a final order at a future open meeting. In June 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement.

Generation Cost Recovery Rider

In October 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application to establish a generation cost recovery rider with an initial annual revenue requirement of approximately $91 million to begin recovering a return of and on its generation capital investment in the Montgomery County Power Station through August 31, 2020. In December 2020, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed settlement supporting a generation cost recovery rider with an annual revenue requirement of approximately $86 million. The settlement revenue requirement was based on a depreciation rate intended to fully depreciate Montgomery County Power Station over 38 years and the removal of certain costs from Entergy Texas’s request. Under the settlement, Entergy Texas retained the right to propose a different depreciation rate and seek recovery of a majority of the costs removed from its request in its next base rate proceeding, which proceeding commenced in June 2022. On January 14, 2021, the PUCT approved the generation cost recovery rider settlement rates on an interim basis and abated the proceeding. In March 2021, Entergy Texas filed to update its generation cost recovery rider to include its generation capital investment in Montgomery County Power Station after August 31, 2020. In April 2021 the ALJ issued an order unabating the proceeding and in May 2021 the ALJ issued an order finding Entergy Texas’s application and notice of the application to be sufficient. In May 2021, Entergy Texas filed an amendment to the application to reflect the PUCT’s approval of the sale of a 7.56% partial interest in the Montgomery County Power Station to East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc., which closed in June 2021. In June 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. In July 2021 the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings adopted a procedural schedule setting a hearing on the merits for September 2021. In July 2021 the parties filed a motion to abate the procedural schedule noting they had reached an agreement in principle and to allow the parties time to finalize a settlement agreement, which motion was granted by the ALJ. In October 2021, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed settlement agreement that would adjust its generation cost recovery rider to recover an annual revenue requirement of approximately $88.3 million related to Entergy Texas’s investment in the Montgomery County Power Station through January 1, 2021, with Entergy Texas able to seek recovery of the remainder of its investment in its next base rate case. Also in October 2021 the ALJ granted a motion to admit evidence and remand the proceeding to the PUCT. In January 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the unopposed settlement. In February 2022, Entergy Texas filed a relate-back rider to collect over five months an additional approximately $5 million, which is the difference between the interim revenue requirement approved in January 2021 and the

revenue requirement approved in January 2022 that reflects Entergy Texas’s full generation capital investment and ownership in Montgomery County Power Station on January 1, 2021, plus carrying costs from January 2021 through January 2022 when the updated revenue requirement took effect. In April 2022, Entergy Texas and the PUCT staff filed a joint proposed order supporting approval of Entergy Texas’s as-filed request. The PUCT approved the relate-back rider consistent with Entergy Texas’s as-filed request, and rates became effective over a five-month period, in August 2022.

In December 2020, Entergy Texas also filed an application to amend its generation cost recovery rider to reflect its acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility, which closed in June 2021. Because Hardin was to be acquired in the future, the initial generation cost recovery rider rates proposed in the application represented no change from the generation cost recovery rider rates established in Entergy Texas’s previous generation cost recovery rider proceeding. In July 2021 the PUCT issued an order approving the application. In August 2021, Entergy Texas filed an update application to recover its actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in April 2022. In January 2022, Entergy Texas filed an update to its application to align the requested revenue requirement with the terms of the generation cost recovery rider settlement approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In March 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed motion, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings, to abate the procedural schedule indicating that the parties had reached an agreement in principle. In April 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a unanimous settlement agreement that would adjust its generation cost recovery rider to recover an annual revenue requirement of approximately $92.8 million, which is $4.5 million in incremental annual revenue above the $88.3 million approved in January 2022, related to Entergy Texas’s actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. Concurrently with filing of the unanimous settlement agreement, Entergy Texas submitted an agreed motion to admit evidence and remand the case to the PUCT for review and consideration of the settlement agreement, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings. The PUCT approved the settlement agreement and rates became effective in August 2022. In September 2022, Entergy Texas filed a relate-back rider designed to collect over three months an additional approximately $5.7 million, which is the revenue requirement, plus carrying costs, associated with Entergy Texas’s acquisition of Hardin County Peaking Facility from June 2021 through August 2022 when the updated revenue requirement took effect. No party requested a hearing on the application and in November 2022 the PUCT staff filed a recommendation that the application be approved as-filed. In December 2022, Entergy Texas filed a joint motion to admit evidence, which was approved by the PUCT, and a proposed order that would approve its as-filed application. A PUCT decision is expected in the first quarter of 2023. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Hardin County Peaking Facility purchase.

COVID-19 Orders

In March 2020 the PUCT authorized electric utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses resulting from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In future proceedings, the PUCT will consider whether each utility's request for recovery of these regulatory assets is reasonable and necessary, the appropriate period of recovery, and any amount of carrying costs thereon. In March 2020 the PUCT ordered a moratorium on disconnections for nonpayment for all customer classes, but, in April 2020, revised the disconnect moratorium to apply only to residential customers. The PUCT allowed the moratorium to expire on June 13, 2020, but on July 17, 2020, the PUCT re-established the disconnect moratorium for residential customers until August 31, 2020. In January 2021, Entergy Texas resumed disconnections for customers with past-due balances that have not made payment arrangements. As of December 31, 2022, Entergy Texas had a regulatory asset of $10.4 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of its 2022 base rate case filing, Entergy Texas requested recovery of its regulatory asset over a three-year period beginning December 2022.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

In June 2009 the LPSC filed a complaint requesting 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 allocated 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 prohibited sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies. The LPSC’s complaint challenged sales made beginning in 2002 and requested refunds. In July 2009 the Utility operating companies filed a response to the complaint arguing among other things that the System Agreement contemplates that the Utility operating companies may make sales to third parties for their own account, subject to the requirement that those sales be included in the load (or load shape) for the applicable Utility operating company. The FERC subsequently ordered a hearing in the proceeding.

After a hearing, the ALJ issued an initial decision in December 2010. The ALJ found that the System Agreement allowed for Entergy Arkansas to make the sales to third parties but concluded that the sales should be accounted for in the same manner as joint account sales. The ALJ concluded that “shareholders” should make refunds of the damages to the Utility operating companies, along with interest. Entergy disagreed with several aspects of the ALJ’s initial decision and in January 2011 filed with the FERC exceptions to the decision.

The FERC issued a decision in June 2012 and held that, while the System Agreement is ambiguous, it does provide authority for individual Utility operating companies to make opportunity sales for their own account and Entergy Arkansas made and priced these sales in good faith. The FERC found, however, that the System Agreement does not provide authority for an individual Utility operating company to allocate the energy associated with such opportunity sales as part of its load but provides a different allocation authority. The FERC further found that the after-the-fact accounting methodology used to allocate the energy used to supply the sales was inconsistent with the System Agreement. The FERC in its decision established further hearing procedures to quantify the effect of repricing the opportunity sales in accordance with the FERC’s June 2012 decision. The hearing was held in May 2013 and the ALJ issued an initial decision in August 2013. The LPSC, the APSC, the City Council, and FERC staff filed briefs on exceptions and/or briefs opposing exceptions. Entergy filed a brief on exceptions requesting that the FERC reverse the initial decision and a brief opposing certain exceptions taken by the LPSC and FERC staff.

In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denied Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirmed the 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 August 2013 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.

In May 2016, Entergy Services filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order arguing that payments made by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced as a result of the timing of the LPSC’s approval of certain contracts. 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. In September 2017 the FERC issued an order denying the request for rehearing on the issue of whether any payments by Entergy Arkansas to the other Utility operating companies should be reduced due to the timing of the LPSC’s approval of Entergy Arkansas’s wholesale baseload contract with Entergy Louisiana. In November 2017 the FERC issued an order denying all of the remaining requests for rehearing of the April 2016 order. In November 2017, Entergy Services filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit of the FERC’s orders in the first two phases of the opportunity sales case. In December 2017 the D.C. Circuit granted Entergy Services’ request to hold the appeal in abeyance pending final resolution of the related proceeding before the FERC. In January 2018 the APSC and the LPSC filed separate petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit, and the D.C. Circuit consolidated the appeals with Entergy Services’ appeal.

The hearing required by the FERC’s April 2016 order was held in May 2017. In July 2017 the ALJ issued an initial decision addressing whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and whether to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology. In August 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, and FERC staff filed individual briefs on exceptions challenging various aspects of the initial decision. In September 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and FERC staff filed separate briefs opposing exceptions taken by various parties.

Based on testimony previously submitted in the case and its assessment of the April 2016 FERC orders, in the first quarter 2016, Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million, which included interest, for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies, and a deferred fuel regulatory asset of $75 million. Following its assessment of the course of the proceedings, including the FERC’s denial of rehearing in November 2017 described above, in the fourth quarter 2017, Entergy Arkansas recorded an additional liability of $35 million and a regulatory asset of $31 million.

In October 2018 the FERC issued an order addressing the ALJ’s July 2017 initial decision. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision to cap the reduction in Entergy Arkansas’s payment to account for the increased bandwidth payments that Entergy Arkansas made to the other operating companies. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that Grand Gulf sales from January through September 2000 should be included in the calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payment. The FERC affirmed on other grounds the ALJ’s rejection of the LPSC’s claim that certain joint account sales should be accounted for as part of the calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payment. In November 2018 the LPSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s October 2018 decision. In December 2019 the FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing. In January 2020 the LPSC appealed the December 2019 decision to the D.C. Circuit.

In December 2018, Entergy made a compliance filing in response to the FERC’s October 2018 order. 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. Refunds and interest in the following amounts were paid by Entergy Arkansas to the other operating companies in December 2018:


	Total refunds including interest
	Payment/(Receipt)
	(In Millions)
	Principal	Interest	Total
Entergy Arkansas	$68	$67	$135
Entergy Louisiana	($30)	($29)	($59)
Entergy Mississippi	($18)	($18)	($36)
Entergy New Orleans	($3)	($4)	($7)
Entergy Texas	($17)	($16)	($33)

Entergy Arkansas previously recognized a regulatory asset with a balance of $116 million as of December 31, 2018 for a portion of the payments due as a result of this proceeding.

As described above, the FERC’s opportunity sales orders have been appealed to the D.C. Circuit. In February 2020 all of the appeals were consolidated and in April 2020 the D.C. Circuit established a briefing schedule. Briefing was completed in September 2020 and oral argument was heard in December 2020. In July 2021 the D.C. Circuit issued a decision denying all of the petitions for review filed in response to the FERC’s opportunity sales orders.

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. In November 2019 the FERC issued an order denying the LPSC’s complaint. The order concluded that the settlement agreement approved by the FERC in December 2015 terminating the System Agreement barred the LPSC’s new complaint. In December 2019 the LPSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s November 2019 order, and in July 2020 the FERC issued an order dismissing the LPSC’s request for rehearing. In September 2020 the LPSC appealed to the D.C. Circuit the FERC’s orders dismissing the new opportunity sales complaint. In November 2020 the D.C. Circuit issued an order establishing that briefing will occur in January 2021 through April 2021. Oral argument was held in September 2021. In December 2021 the D.C. Circuit denied the LPSC’s Petition for Review of the new opportunity sales complaint. The opportunity sales cases are complete at FERC and at the D.C. Circuit and no additional refund amounts are owed by Entergy Arkansas.

In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed an application and supporting testimony with the APSC requesting approval of a special rider tariff to recover the costs of these payments from its retail customers over a 24-month period. The application requested that the APSC approve the rider to take effect within 30 days or, if suspended by the APSC as allowed by commission rule, approve the rider to take effect in the first billing cycle of the first month occurring 30 days after issuance of the APSC’s order approving the rider. In June 2019 the APSC suspended Entergy Arkansas’s tariff and granted Entergy Arkansas’s motion asking the APSC to establish the proceeding as the single designated proceeding in which interested parties may assert claims related to the appropriate retail rate treatment of the FERC’s October 2018 order and related FERC orders in the opportunity sales proceeding. In January 2020 the APSC adopted a procedural schedule with a hearing in April 2020. In January 2020 the Attorney General and Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed a joint motion seeking to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s application alleging that the APSC, in a prior proceeding, ruled on the issues addressed in the application and determined that Entergy Arkansas’s requested relief violates the filed rate doctrine and the prohibition against retroactive ratemaking. Entergy Arkansas responded to the joint motion in February 2020 rebutting these arguments, including demonstrating that the claims in this proceeding differ substantially from those the APSC addressed previously and that the payment resulting from a FERC tariff violation for which Entergy Arkansas seeks retail cost recovery in this proceeding differs materially from the refunds resulting from a FERC tariff amendment that the APSC previously rejected on filed rate doctrine and the retroactive ratemaking grounds. In addition, in January 2020 the Attorney General and Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed testimony opposing the recovery by Entergy Arkansas of the opportunity sales payment but also claiming that certain components of the payment should be segregated and refunded to customers. In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony.

In July 2020 the APSC issued a decision finding that Entergy Arkansas’s application is not in the public interest. The order also directed Entergy Arkansas to refund to its retail customers within 30 days of the order the FERC-determined over-collection of $13.7 million, plus interest, associated with a recalculated bandwidth remedy. In addition to these primary findings, the order also denied the Attorney General’s request for Entergy Arkansas to prepare a compliance filing detailing all of the retail impacts from the opportunity sales and denied a request by the Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers to recalculate all costs using the revised responsibility ratio. Entergy Arkansas filed a motion for temporary stay of the 30-day requirement to allow Entergy Arkansas a reasonable opportunity to seek rehearing of the APSC order, but in July 2020 the APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s request for

a stay and directed Entergy Arkansas to refund to its retail customers the component of the total FERC-determined opportunity sales payment that was associated with increased bandwidth remedy payments of $13.7 million, plus interest. The refunds were issued in the August 2020 billing cycle. While the APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s stay request, Entergy Arkansas believes its actions were prudent and, therefore, the costs, including the $13.7 million, plus interest, are recoverable. In July 2020, Entergy Arkansas requested rehearing of the APSC order, which rehearing was denied by the APSC in August 2020. In September 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas challenging the APSC’s order denying Entergy Arkansas’s request to recover the costs of these payments. In October 2020 the APSC filed a motion to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s complaint, to which Entergy Arkansas responded. Also in December 2020, Entergy Arkansas and the APSC held a pre-trial conference, and filed a report with the court in January 2021. The court held a hearing in February 2021 regarding issues addressed in the pre-trial conference report, and in June 2021 the court stayed all discovery until it rules on pending motions, after which the court will issue an amended schedule if necessary. In March 2022 the court denied the APSC’s motion to dismiss, and, in April 2022, issued a scheduling order including a trial date in February 2023. In June 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion asserting that it is entitled to summary judgment because Entergy Arkansas’s position that the APSC’s order is pre-empted by the filed rate doctrine and violates the Dormant Commerce Clause is premised on facts that are not subject to genuine dispute. In July 2022, Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc., an industrial customer association, filed a motion to intervene and to hold Entergy Arkansas’s motion for summary judgment in abeyance pending a ruling on the motion to intervene. Entergy Arkansas filed a consolidated opposition to both motions. In August 2022 the APSC filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the APSC is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In September 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed an opposition to the motion. In October 2022 the APSC filed a motion asking the court to hold further proceedings in abeyance pending a decision on the motions for summary judgment filed by Entergy Arkansas and the APSC. Also in October 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed an opposition to the motion, and the APSC filed a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment. In January 2023 the judge assigned to the case, on her own motion, identified facts that may present a conflict and recused herself; a new judge was assigned to the case, but he also recused due to a conflict. The case again was reassigned to a new judge. In January 2023 the court denied all pending motions (including those described above) except for a motion by the APSC to exclude certain testimony and further ruled that the matter would proceed to trial. In January 2023, Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed a notice of appeal of the court’s order denying its motion to intervene to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and a motion with the district court to stay the proceedings pending the appeal, which was denied. In February 2023, Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed a motion with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth District to stay the proceedings pending the appeal, which also was denied. The trial was held in February 2023. Following the trial, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth District to expedite the appeal filed by Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. The court granted Entergy Arkansas’s request.

Complaints Against System Energy

System Energy’s operating revenues are derived from the allocation of the capacity, energy, and related costs associated with its 90% ownership/leasehold interest in Grand Gulf. System Energy sells its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans pursuant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. System Energy and the Unit Power Sales Agreement are currently the subject of several litigation proceedings at the FERC, including challenges with respect to System Energy’s authorized return on equity and capital structure, renewal of its sale-leaseback arrangement, treatment of uncertain tax positions, a broader investigation of rates under the Unit Power Sales Agreement, and a prudence complaint challenging the extended power uprate completed at Grand Gulf in 2012 and the operation and management of Grand Gulf, particularly in the 2016-2020 time period. The claims in these proceedings include claims for refunds and claims for rate adjustments; the aggregate amount of refunds claimed in these proceedings substantially exceeds the net book value of System Energy. Following are discussions of the proceedings.

Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints

In January 2017 the APSC and MPSC filed a complaint with the FERC against System Energy. The complaint seeks a reduction in the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement pursuant to which System Energy sells its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. Entergy Arkansas also sells some of its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans under separate agreements. The current return on equity under the Unit Power Sales Agreement is 10.94%, which was established in a rate proceeding that became final in July 2001. As discussed below in “System Energy Settlement with the MPSC,” beginning with the July 2022 service month, bills issued to Entergy Mississippi under the Unit Power Sales Agreement reflect a return on equity of 9.65%.

The APSC and MPSC complaint alleges that the return on equity is unjust and unreasonable because capital market and other considerations indicate that it is excessive. The complaint requests proceedings to investigate the return on equity and establish a lower return on equity, and also requests that the FERC establish January 23, 2017 as a refund effective date. The complaint includes return on equity analysis that purports to establish that the range of reasonable return on equity for System Energy is between 8.37% and 8.67%. System Energy answered the complaint in February 2017 and disputes that a return on equity of 8.37% to 8.67% is just and reasonable. The LPSC and the City Council intervened in the proceeding expressing support for the complaint. In September 2017 the FERC established a refund effective date of January 23, 2017 and directed the parties to engage in settlement proceedings before an ALJ. The parties were unable to settle the return on equity issue and a FERC hearing judge was assigned in July 2018. The 15-month refund period in connection with the APSC/MPSC complaint expired on April 23, 2018.

In April 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint with the FERC against System Energy seeking an additional 15-month refund period. The LPSC complaint requests similar relief from the FERC with respect to System Energy’s return on equity and also requests the FERC to investigate System Energy’s capital structure. The APSC, MPSC, and City Council intervened in the proceeding, filed an answer expressing support for the complaint, and asked the FERC to consolidate this proceeding with the proceeding initiated by the complaint of the APSC and MPSC in January 2017. System Energy answered the LPSC complaint in May 2018 and also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. 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 27, 2018. The 15-month refund period in connection with the LPSC return on equity complaint expired on July 26, 2019.

The portion of the LPSC’s complaint dealing with return on equity was subsequently consolidated with the APSC and MPSC complaint for hearing. The parties addressed an order (issued in a separate FERC 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 complaint for settlement and hearing proceedings. Settlement proceedings in the capital structure proceeding commenced in February 2019. As noted below, in June 2019 settlement discussions were terminated and the amended capital structure complaint was consolidated with the ongoing return on equity proceeding. The 15-month refund period in connection with the capital structure complaint was from September 24, 2018 to December 23, 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. 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).

In May 2019 the FERC trial staff filed its direct and answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, the FERC trial staff calculates an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 9.89% based on the application of FERC’s proposed methodology. The FERC trial staff’s direct and answering testimony noted that an authorized return on equity of 9.89% for the first refund period was within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity for the second refund period, as calculated using a study period ending January 31, 2019 for the second refund period.

In June 2019, System Energy filed testimony responding to the testimony filed by the FERC trial staff. Among other things, System Energy’s testimony rebutted arguments raised by the FERC trial staff and provided updated calculations for the second refund period based on the study period ending May 31, 2019. For that refund period, System Energy’s testimony shows that strict application of the return on equity methodology proposed by the FERC staff indicates that the second complaint would not be dismissed, and the new return on equity would be set at 9.65% (median) or 9.74% (midpoint). System Energy’s testimony argues that these results are insufficient in light of benchmarks such as state returns on equity and treasury bond yields, and instead proposes that the calculated returns on equity for the second period should be either 9.91% (median) or 10.3% (midpoint). System Energy’s testimony also argues that, under application of its proposed modified methodology, the 10.10% return on equity calculated for the first refund period would fall within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity for the second refund period.

Also in June 2019, the FERC’s Chief ALJ issued an order terminating settlement discussions in the amended complaint addressing System Energy’s capital structure. The ALJ consolidated the amended capital structure complaint with the ongoing return on equity proceeding and set new procedural deadlines for the consolidated hearing.

In August 2019 the LPSC and the APSC and MPSC filed rebuttal testimony in the return on equity proceeding and direct and answering testimony relating to System Energy’s capital structure. The LPSC re-argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.81% for the first refund period and 7.97% for the second refund period. The APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.26% for the first refund period and 8.32% for the second refund period. With respect to capital structure, the LPSC proposes that the FERC establish a hypothetical capital structure for System Energy for ratemaking purposes. Specifically, the LPSC proposes that System Energy’s common equity ratio be set to Entergy Corporation’s equity ratio of 37% equity and 63% debt. In the alternative, the LPSC argues that the equity ratio should be no higher than 49%, the composite equity ratio of System Energy and the other Entergy operating companies who purchase under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The APSC and MPSC recommend that 35.98% be set as the common equity ratio for System Energy. As an alternative, the APSC and MPSC propose that System Energy’s common equity be set at 46.75% based on the median equity ratio of the proxy group for setting the return on equity.

In September 2019 the FERC trial staff filed its rebuttal testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, the FERC trial staff calculates an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 9.40% based on the application of the FERC’s proposed methodology and an updated proxy group. For the second refund period, based on the study period ending May 31, 2019, the FERC trial staff rebuttal testimony argues for a return on equity of 9.63%. In September 2019 the FERC trial staff also filed direct and answering testimony relating to System Energy’s capital structure. The FERC trial staff argues that the average capital structure of the proxy group

used to develop System Energy’s return on equity should be used to establish the capital structure. Using this approach, the FERC trial staff calculates the average capital structure for its proposed proxy group of 46.74% common equity, and 53.26% debt.

In October 2019, System Energy filed answering testimony disputing the FERC trial staff’s, the LPSC’s, and the APSC’s and MPSC’s arguments for the use of a hypothetical capital structure and arguing that the use of System Energy’s actual capital structure is just and reasonable.

In November 2019, in a proceeding that did not involve System Energy, the FERC issued an order addressing the methodology for determining the return on equity applicable to transmission owners in MISO. Thereafter, the procedural schedule in the System Energy proceeding was amended to allow the participants to file supplemental testimony addressing the order in the MISO transmission owner proceeding (Opinion No. 569).

In February 2020 the LPSC, the MPSC and APSC, and the FERC trial staff filed supplemental testimony addressing Opinion No. 569 and how it would affect the return on equity evaluation for the two complaint periods concerning System Energy. For the first refund period, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569 methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.44%; the MPSC and APSC argue for an authorized return on equity of 8.41%; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 9.22%. For the second refund period and on a prospective basis, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569 methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.89%; the MPSC and APSC argue that an authorized return on equity of 8.01% may be appropriate; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 8.66%.

In April 2020, System Energy filed supplemental answering testimony addressing Opinion No. 569. System Energy argues that the Opinion No. 569 methodology is conceptually and analytically defective for purposes of establishing just and reasonable authorized return on equity determinations and proposes an alternative approach. As its primary recommendation, System Energy continues to support the return on equity determinations in its March 2019 testimony for the first refund period and its June 2019 testimony for the second refund period. Under the Opinion No. 569 methodology, System Energy calculates a “presumptively just and reasonable range” for the authorized return on equity for the first refund period of 8.57% to 9.52%, and for the second refund period of 8.28% to 9.11%. System Energy argues that these ranges are not just and reasonable results. Under its proposed alternative methodology, System Energy calculates an authorized return on equity of 10.26% for the first refund period, which also falls within the presumptively just and reasonable range calculated for the second refund period and prospectively.

In May 2020 the FERC issued an order on rehearing of Opinion No. 569 (Opinion No. 569-A). In June 2020 the procedural schedule in the System Energy proceeding was further revised in order to allow parties to address the Opinion No. 569-A methodology. Pursuant to the revised schedule, in June 2020, the LPSC, MPSC and APSC, and the FERC trial staff filed supplemental testimony addressing Opinion No. 569-A and how it would affect the return on equity evaluation for the two complaint periods concerning System Energy. For the first refund period, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.97%; the MPSC and APSC argue for an authorized return on equity of 9.24%; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 9.49%. For the second refund period and on a prospective basis, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.78%; the MPSC and APSC argue that an authorized return on equity of 9.15% may be appropriate if the second complaint is not dismissed; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 9.09% if the second complaint is not dismissed.

Pursuant to the revised procedural schedule, in July 2020, System Energy filed supplemental testimony addressing Opinion No. 569-A. System Energy argues that strict application of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology produces results inconsistent with investor requirements and does not provide a sound basis on which

to evaluate System Energy’s authorized return on equity. As its primary recommendation, System Energy argues for the use of a methodology that incorporates four separate financial models, including the constant growth form of the discounted cash flow model and the empirical capital asset pricing model. Based on application of its recommended methodology, System Energy argues for an authorized return on equity of 10.12% for the first refund period, which also falls within the presumptively just and reasonable range calculated for the second refund period and prospectively. Under the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, System Energy calculates an authorized return on equity of 9.44% for the first refund period, which also falls within the presumptively just and reasonable range calculated for the second refund period and prospectively.

The parties and FERC trial staff filed final rounds of testimony in August 2020. The hearing before a FERC ALJ occurred in late-September through early-October 2020, post-hearing briefing took place in November and December 2020.

In March 2021 the FERC ALJ issued an initial decision. With regard to System Energy’s authorized return on equity, the ALJ determined that the existing return on equity of 10.94% is no longer just and reasonable, and that the replacement authorized return on equity, based on application of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, should be 9.32%. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (January 2017-April 2018) based on the difference between the current return on equity and the replacement authorized return on equity. The ALJ determined that the April 2018 complaint concerning the authorized return on equity should be dismissed, and that no refunds for a second fifteen-month refund period should be due. With regard to System Energy’s capital structure, the ALJ determined that System Energy’s actual equity ratio is excessive and that the just and reasonable equity ratio is 48.15% equity, based on the average equity ratio of the proxy group used to evaluate the return on equity for the second complaint. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (September 2018-December 2019) based on the difference between the actual equity ratio and the 48.15% equity ratio. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this proceeding is approximately $63 million, which includes interest through December 31, 2022, and the estimated resulting annual rate reduction would be approximately $35 million. The estimated refund will continue to accrue interest until a final FERC decision is issued.

The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. In April 2021, System Energy filed its brief on exceptions, in which it challenged the initial decision’s findings on both the return on equity and capital structure issues. Also in April 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, City Council, and the FERC trial staff filed briefs on exceptions. Reply briefs opposing exceptions were filed in May 2021 by System Energy, the FERC trial staff, the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the City Council. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision.

As discussed in “System Energy Settlement with the MPSC” below, beginning with the July 2022 service month, bills issued to Entergy Mississippi under the Unit Power Sales Agreement were adjusted to reflect a capital structure not to exceed 52% equity.

In August 2022 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order addressing appeals of FERC’s Opinion No. 569 and 569-A, which established the methodology applied in the ALJ’s initial decision in the proceeding against System Energy discussed above. The appellate order addressed the methodology for determining the return on equity applicable to transmission owners in MISO. The D.C. Circuit found the FERC’s use of the Risk Premium model as part of the methodology to be arbitrary and capricious, and remanded the case back to the FERC. The remanded case is pending FERC action.

Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue

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. The complaint alleges that System Energy violated the filed rate and the FERC’s ratemaking and accounting requirements when it included in Unit Power Sales Agreement billings the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest, and that System Energy is double-recovering costs by including both the lease payments and the capital additions in Unit Power Sales Agreement billings. The complaint also claims that System Energy was imprudent in entering into the sale-leaseback renewal because the Utility operating companies that purchase Grand Gulf’s output from System Energy could have obtained cheaper capacity and energy in the MISO markets. The complaint further alleges that System Energy violated various other reporting and accounting requirements and should have sought prior FERC approval of the lease renewal. The complaint seeks various forms of relief from the FERC. The complaint seeks refunds for capital addition costs for all years in which they were recorded in allegedly non-formula accounts or, alternatively, the disallowance of the return on equity for the capital additions in those years plus interest. The complaint also asks that the FERC disallow and refund the lease costs of the sale-leaseback renewal on grounds of imprudence, investigate System Energy’s treatment of a DOE litigation payment, and impose certain forward-looking procedural protections, including audit rights for retail regulators of the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rates. The APSC, MPSC, and City Council intervened in the proceeding.

In June 2018, System Energy and Entergy Services filed a motion to dismiss and an answer to the LPSC complaint denying that System Energy’s treatment of the sale-leaseback renewal and capital additions violated the terms of the filed rate or any other FERC ratemaking, accounting, or legal requirements or otherwise constituted double recovery. The response also argued that the complaint is inconsistent with a FERC-approved settlement to which the LPSC is a party and that explicitly authorizes System Energy to recover its lease payments. Finally, the response argued that both the capital additions and the sale-leaseback renewal were prudent investments and the LPSC complaint fails to justify any disallowance or refunds. The response also offered to submit formula rate protocols for the Unit Power Sales Agreement similar to the procedures used for reviewing transmission rates under the MISO tariff. In September 2018 the FERC issued an order setting the complaint for hearing and settlement proceedings. The FERC established a refund effective date of May 18, 2018.

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 sought refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income tax associated with uncertain tax positions, and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest, as well as interest on those amounts.

In June 2019 System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should reject all claims for refunds. Among other things, System Energy argued that claims for refunds of the costs of lease renewal payments and capital additions should be rejected because those costs were recovered consistent with the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate, System Energy was not over or double recovering any costs, and ratepayers will save costs over the initial and renewal terms of the leases. System Energy argued that claims for refunds associated with liabilities arising from uncertain tax positions should be rejected because the liabilities do not provide cost-free capital, the repayment timing of the liabilities is uncertain, and the outcome of the underlying tax positions is uncertain. System Energy’s testimony also challenged the refund calculations supplied by the other parties.

In August 2019 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony seeking refunds for rate base reductions for liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions. The FERC trial staff also argued that System Energy recovered $32 million more than it should have in depreciation expense for capital additions. In September 2019, System Energy filed cross-answering testimony disputing the FERC trial staff’s arguments for refunds, stating that the FERC trial staff’s position regarding depreciation rates for capital additions is not unreasonable, but explaining that any change in depreciation expense is only one element of a Unit Power Sales Agreement re-billing calculation. Adjustments to depreciation expense in any re-billing under the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate will also involve changes to accumulated depreciation, accumulated deferred income taxes, and other formula elements as needed. In October 2019 the LPSC filed rebuttal testimony increasing the amount of refunds sought for

liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions. The LPSC seeks approximately $512 million plus interest, which is approximately $248 million through December 31, 2022. The FERC trial staff also filed rebuttal testimony in which it seeks refunds of a similar amount as the LPSC for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions. The LPSC testimony also argued that adjustments to depreciation rates should affect rate base on a prospective basis only.

A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019. In April 2020 the ALJ issued the initial decision. Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues. First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million. The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service. The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy. In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively. Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and that System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities. The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward. Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections.

In June 2020, System Energy, the LPSC, and the FERC trial staff filed briefs on exceptions, challenging several of the initial decision’s findings. System Energy’s brief on exceptions challenged the initial decision’s limitations on recovery of the lease renewal payments, its proposed rate base refund for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, and its proposal to asymmetrically treat interest on bill corrections for depreciation expense adjustments. The LPSC’s and the FERC trial staff’s briefs on exceptions each challenged the initial decision’s allowance for recovery of the cost of service associated with the lease renewal based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, its calculation of the remaining net book value of the leased assets, and the amount of the initial decision’s proposed rate base refund for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions. The LPSC’s brief on exceptions also challenged the initial decision’s proposal that depreciation expense adjustments include retroactive adjustments to rate base and its finding that section 203 of the Federal Power Act did not apply to the lease renewal. The FERC trial staff’s brief on exceptions also challenged the initial decision’s finding that the FERC need not institute a formal investigation into System Energy’s tariff. In October 2020, System Energy, the LPSC, the MPSC, the APSC, and the City Council filed briefs opposing exceptions. System Energy opposed the exceptions filed by the LPSC and the FERC trial staff. The LPSC, MPSC, APSC, City Council, and the FERC trial staff opposed the exceptions filed by System Energy. Also in October 2020 the MPSC, APSC, and the City Council filed briefs adopting the exceptions of the LPSC and the FERC trial staff.

In addition, in September 2020, the IRS issued a Notice of Proposed Adjustment (NOPA) and Entergy executed it. The NOPA memorializes the IRS’s decision to adjust the 2015 consolidated federal income tax return of Entergy Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries, including System Energy, with regard to the uncertain decommissioning tax position. Pursuant to the audit resolution documented in the NOPA, the IRS allowed System Energy’s inclusion of $102 million of future nuclear decommissioning costs in System Energy’s cost of goods sold for the 2015 tax year, roughly 10% of the requested deduction, but disallowed the balance of the position. In September 2020, System Energy filed a motion to lodge the NOPA into the record in the FERC proceeding. In October 2020 the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and the FERC trial staff filed oppositions to System Energy’s motion. As a result of the NOPA issued by the IRS in September 2020, System Energy filed, in October 2020, a new Federal Power Act section 205 filing at FERC to establish an ongoing rate base credit for the accumulated deferred income taxes resulting from the decommissioning uncertain tax position. On a prospective basis beginning with the October 2020 bill, System Energy proposes to include the accumulated deferred income

taxes arising from the successful portion of the decommissioning uncertain tax position as a credit to rate base under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In November 2020 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and City Council filed a protest to the filing, and System Energy responded.

In November 2020 the IRS issued a Revenue Agent’s Report (RAR) for the 2014/2015 tax year and in December 2020 Entergy executed it. The RAR contained the same adjustment to the uncertain nuclear decommissioning tax position as that which the IRS had announced in the NOPA. In December 2020, System Energy filed a motion to lodge the RAR into the record in the FERC proceeding addressing the uncertain tax position rate base issue. In January 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and City Council filed a protest to the motion.

As a result of the RAR, in December 2020, System Energy filed amendments to its new Federal Power Act section 205 filings to establish an ongoing rate base credit for the accumulated deferred income taxes resulting from the decommissioning uncertain tax position and to credit excess accumulated deferred income taxes arising from the successful portion of the decommissioning uncertain tax position. The amendments both propose the inclusion of the RAR as support for the filings. In December 2020 the LPSC, APSC, and City Council filed a protest in response to the amendments, reiterating their prior objections to the filings. In February 2021 the FERC issued an order accepting System Energy’s Federal Power Act section 205 filings subject to refund, setting them for hearing, and holding the hearing in abeyance.

In December 2020, System Energy filed a new Federal Power Act section 205 filing to provide a one-time, historical credit of $25.2 million for the accumulated deferred income taxes that would have been created by the decommissioning uncertain tax position if the IRS’s decision had been known in 2016. In January 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and City Council filed a protest to the filing. In February 2021 the FERC issued an order accepting System Energy’s Federal Power Act section 205 filing subject to refund, setting it for hearing, and holding the hearing in abeyance. The one-time credit was made during the first quarter 2021.

In December 2022 the FERC issued an order on the ALJ’s initial decision, which affirmed it in part and modified it in part. The FERC’s order directed System Energy to calculate refunds on three issues, and to provide a compliance report detailing the calculations. The FERC’s order also disallows the future recovery of sale-leaseback renewal costs, which is estimated at approximately $11.5 million annually for purchases from Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans through July 2036. The three refund issues are rental expenses related to the renewal of the sale-leaseback arrangements; refunds, if any, for the revenue requirement impact of including accumulated deferred income taxes resulting from the decommissioning uncertain tax positions from 2004 through the present; and refunds for the net effect of correcting the depreciation inputs for capital additions.

In January 2023, System Energy filed its compliance report with the FERC. With respect to the sale-leaseback renewal costs, System Energy calculated a refund of $89.8 million, which represented all of the sale-leaseback renewal rental costs that System Energy recovered in rates, with interest. With respect to the decommissioning uncertain tax position issue, System Energy calculated that no additional refunds are owed because it had already provided a one-time historical credit (for the period January 2016 through September 2020) of $25.2 million based on the accumulated deferred income taxes that resulted from the IRS’s partial acceptance of the decommissioning tax position, and because it has been providing an ongoing rate base credit for the accumulated deferred income taxes that resulted from the IRS’s partial acceptance of the decommissioning tax position since October 2020. With respect to the depreciation refund, System Energy calculated a refund of $13.7 million, which is the net total of a refund to customers for excess depreciation expense previously collected, plus interest, offset by the additional return on rate base that System Energy previously did not collect, without interest. See “System Energy Settlement with the MPSC” below for discussion of the regulatory charge and corresponding regulatory liability recorded in June 2022 related to these proceedings. The $103.5 million in total refunds calculated in the compliance filing were reclassified from long-term other regulatory liabilities to a current regulatory liability as of December 31, 2022. In January 2023, System Energy paid the refunds of $103.5 million, which included refunds of $41.7 million to Entergy Arkansas, $27.8 million to Entergy Louisiana, and $34 million to Entergy New Orleans. Based on the December 2022 FERC order and analysis of the remaining litigation,

management determined that System Energy’s regulatory liability related to complaints against System Energy as of December 31, 2022 is adequate.

In February 2023 the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council filed protests to System Energy’s January 2023 compliance report, in which they challenged System Energy’s calculation of the refunds associated with the decommissioning tax position but did not protest the other components of the compliance report. Each of them argued that System Energy should have paid additional refunds for the decommissioning tax position issue, and the City Council estimated the total additional refunds owed to customers of Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Arkansas for that issue as $493 million, including interest (and without factoring in the $25.2 million refund that System Energy already paid in 2021). The FERC will review System Energy’s compliance refund report and the retail regulators’ protests and issue a further order; there is no deadline for this order. If the FERC were to order additional refunds at a level consistent with the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council position on the remedy for the formerly uncertain tax positions, System Energy’s continued financial viability would be jeopardized.

In January 2023, System Energy also filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s determinations in the December 2022 order on sale-leaseback refund issues and future lease cost disallowances, the FERC’s prospective policy on uncertain tax positions, and the proper accounting of System Energy’s accumulated deferred income taxes adjustment for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017; and a motion for confirmation of its interpretation of the December 2022 order’s remedy concerning the decommissioning tax position. In January 2023 the retail regulators filed a motion for confirmation of their interpretation of the refund requirement in the December 2022 FERC order and a provisional request for rehearing. In February 2023 the FERC issued a notice that the rehearing requests have been deemed denied by operation of law. The deemed denial of the rehearing request initiates the sixty-day period in which aggrieved parties may petition for federal appellate court review of the underlying FERC orders; however the FERC may issue a substantive order on rehearing as long as it continues to have jurisdiction over the case.

As a result of the FERC order’s directives regarding the recovery of the sale-leaseback transaction, in December 2022 System Energy reduced the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback regulatory liability by $56 million, reduced the related accumulated deferred income tax asset by $94 million, and reduced the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback accumulated deferred income tax regulatory liability by $25 million, resulting in an increase in income tax expense of $13 million. In addition, the FERC determined that System Energy recognized excess depreciation expense related to property subject to the sale-leaseback. As a result, in December 2022, System Energy recorded a reduction in depreciation expense and the related accumulated depreciation of $33 million.

LPSC Additional Complaints

In May 2020 the LPSC authorized its staff to file additional complaints at the FERC related to the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf energy and capacity supplied to Entergy Louisiana under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The LPSC directive noted that the initial decision issued by the presiding ALJ in the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback complaint proceeding did not address, for procedural reasons, certain rate issues raised by the LPSC and declined to order further investigation of rates charged by System Energy. The LPSC directive authorized its staff to file complaints at the FERC “necessary to address these rate issues, to request a full investigation into the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf power, and to seek rate refund, rate reduction, and such other remedies as may be necessary and appropriate to protect Louisiana ratepayers.” The LPSC directive further stated that the LPSC has seen “information suggesting that the Grand Gulf plant has been significantly underperforming compared to other nuclear plants in the United States, has had several extended and unexplained outages, and has been plagued with serious safety concerns.” The LPSC expressed concern that the costs paid by Entergy Louisiana's retail customers may have been detrimentally impacted, and authorized “the filing of a FERC complaint to address these performance issues and to seek appropriate refund, rate reduction, and other remedies as may be appropriate.”

Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint

The first of the additional complaints was filed by the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, and the City Council in September 2020. The complaint raises two sets of rate allegations: violations of the filed rate and a corresponding request for refunds for prior periods; and elements of the Unit Power Sales Agreement are unjust and unreasonable and a corresponding request for refunds for the 15-month refund period and changes to the Unit Power Sales Agreement prospectively. Several of the filed rate allegations overlap with the previous complaints. The filed rate allegations not previously raised are that System Energy: failed to provide a rate base credit to customers for the “time value” of sale-leaseback lease payments collected from customers in advance of the time those payments were due to the owner-lessors; improperly included certain lease refinancing costs in rate base as prepayments; improperly included nuclear decommissioning outage costs in rate base; failed to include categories of accumulated deferred income taxes as a reduction to rate base; charged customers based on a higher equity ratio than would be appropriate due to excessive retained earnings; and did not correctly reflect money pool investments and imprudently invested cash into the money pool. The elements of the Unit Power Sales Agreement that the complaint alleges are unjust and unreasonable include: incentive and executive compensation, lack of an equity re-opener, lobbying, and private airplane travel. The complaint also requests a rate investigation into the Unit Power Sales Agreement and System Energy’s billing practices pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, including any issue relevant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement and its inputs. System Energy filed its answer opposing the complaint in November 2020. In its answer, System Energy argued that all of the claims raised in the complaint should be dismissed and agreed that bill adjustment with respect to two discrete issues were justified. System Energy argued that dismissal is warranted because all claims fall into one or more of the following categories: the claims have been raised and are being litigated in another proceeding; the claims do not present a prima facie case and do not satisfy the threshold burden to establish a complaint proceeding; the claims are premised on a theory or request relief that is incompatible with federal law or FERC policy; the claims request relief that is inconsistent with the filed rate; the claims are barred or waived by the legal doctrine of laches; and/or the claims have been fully addressed and do not warrant further litigation. In December 2020, System Energy filed a bill adjustment report indicating that $3.4 million had been credited to customers in connection with the two discrete issues concerning the inclusion of certain accumulated deferred income taxes balances in rates. In January 2021 the complainants filed a response to System Energy’s November 2020 answer, and in February 2021, System Energy filed a response to the complainant’s response.

In May 2021 the FERC issued an order addressing the complaint, establishing a refund effective date of September 21, 2020, establishing hearing procedures, and holding those procedures in abeyance pending FERC’s review of the initial decision in the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback renewal complaint discussed above. System Energy agreed that the hearing should be held in abeyance but sought rehearing of FERC’s decision as related to matters set for hearing that were beyond the scope of FERC’s jurisdiction or authority. The complainants sought rehearing of FERC’s decision to hold the hearing in abeyance and filed a motion to proceed, which motion System Energy subsequently opposed. In June 2021, System Energy’s request for rehearing was denied by operation of law, and System Energy filed an appeal of FERC’s orders in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal was initially stayed for a period of 90 days, but the stay expired. In November 2021 the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as premature.

In August 2021 the FERC issued an order addressing System Energy’s and the complainants’ rehearing requests. The FERC dismissed part of the complaint seeking an equity re-opener, maintained the abeyance for issues related to the proceeding addressing the sale-leaseback renewal and uncertain tax positions, lifted the abeyance for issues unrelated to that proceeding, and clarified the scope of the hearing.

In November 2021 the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council filed direct testimony and requested the FERC to order refunds for prior periods and prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The LPSC’s refund claims include, among other things, allegations that: (1) System Energy should not have included certain sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments; (2) System Energy should have credited rate base to reflect the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) System Energy incorrectly

included refueling outage costs that were recorded in account 174 in rate base; and (4) System Energy should have excluded several accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 from rate base. The LPSC is also seeking a retroactive adjustment to retained earnings and capital structure in conjunction with the implementation of its proposed refunds. In addition, the LPSC seeks amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement going forward to address below-the-line costs, incentive compensation, the working capital allowance, litigation expenses, and the 2019 termination of the capital funds agreement. The APSC argues that: (1) System Energy should have included borrowings from the Entergy System money pool in its determination of short-term debt in its cost of capital; and (2) System Energy should credit customers with System Energy’s allocation of earnings on money pool investments. The City Council alleges that System Energy has maintained excess cash on hand in the money pool and that retention of excess cash was imprudent. Based on this allegation, the City Council’s witness recommends a refund of approximately $98.8 million for the period 2004-September 2021 or other alternative relief. The City Council further recommends that the FERC impose a hypothetical equity ratio such as 48.15% equity to capital on a prospective basis.

In January 2022, System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should not order refunds for prior periods or any prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In response to the LPSC’s refund claims, System Energy argues, among other things, that: (1) the inclusion of sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments was correct; (2) that the filed rate doctrine bars the request for a retroactive credit to rate base for the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) that an accounting misclassification for deferred refueling outage costs has been corrected, caused no harm to customers, and requires no refunds; and (4) that its accounting and ratemaking treatment of specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 has been correct. System Energy further responds that no retroactive adjustment to retained earnings or capital structure should be ordered because there is no general policy requiring such a remedy, and there was no showing that the retained earnings element of the capital structure was incorrectly implemented. Further, System Energy presented evidence that all of the costs that are being challenged were long known to the retail regulators and were approved by them for inclusion in retail rates, and the attempt to retroactively challenge these costs, some of which have been included in rates for decades, is unjust and unreasonable. In response to the LPSC’s proposed going-forward adjustments, System Energy presents evidence to show that none of the proposed adjustments are needed. On the issue of below-the-line expenses, during discovery procedures System Energy identified a historical allocation error in certain months and agreed to provide a bill credit to customers to correct the error. In response to the APSC’s claims, System Energy argues that the Unit Power Sales Agreement does not include System Energy’s borrowings from the Entergy System money pool or earnings on deposits to the Entergy System money pool in the determination of the cost of capital; and accordingly, no refunds are appropriate on those issues. In response to the City Council’s claims, System Energy argues that it has reasonably managed its cash and that the City Council’s theory of cash management is defective because it fails to adequately consider the relevant cash needs of System Energy and it makes faulty presumptions about the operation of the Entergy System money pool. System Energy further points out that the issue of its capital structure is already subject to pending FERC litigation.

In March 2022 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony in response to the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council’s direct testimony. In its testimony, the FERC trial staff recommends refunds for two primary reasons: (1) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with rate refunds; and (2) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. The FERC trial staff recommends refunds of $84.1 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC interest. In addition, the FERC trial staff recommends the following prospective modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement: (1) inclusion of a rate base credit to recognize the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (2) exclusion of executive incentive compensation costs for members of the Office of the Chief Executive and long-term performance unit costs where awards are based solely or primarily on financial metrics; and (3) exclusion of unvested, accrued amounts for stock options, performance units, and restricted stock awards. With respect to issues that ultimately concern the reasonableness of System Energy’s rate of return, the FERC trial staff states that it is unnecessary to consider such

issues in this proceeding, in light of the pending case concerning System Energy’s return on equity and capital structure. On all other material issues raised by the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council, the FERC trial staff recommends either no refunds or no modification to the Unit Power Sales Agreement.

In April 2022, System Energy filed cross-answering testimony in response to the FERC trial staff’s recommendations of refunds for the accumulated deferred income taxes issues and proposed modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement for the executive incentive compensation issues. In June 2022 the FERC trial staff submitted revised answering testimony, in which it recommended additional refunds associated with the accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. Based on the testimony revisions, the FERC trial staff’s recommended refunds total $106.6 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC awarded interest. Also in June 2022, System Energy filed revised and supplemental cross-answering testimony to respond to the changes in the FERC trial staff’s testimony and oppose its revised recommendation.

In May 2022 the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council filed rebuttal testimony. The LPSC’s testimony asserts new claims, including that: (1) certain of the sale-leaseback transaction costs may have been imprudently incurred; (2) accumulated deferred income taxes associated with sale-leaseback transaction costs should have been included in rate base; (3) accumulated deferred income taxes associated with federal investment tax credits should have been excluded from rate base; (4) monthly net operating loss accumulated deferred income taxes should have been excluded from rate base; and (5) several categories of proposed rate changes, including executive incentive compensation, air travel, industry dues, and legal costs, also warrant historical refunds. The LPSC’s rebuttal testimony argues that refunds for the alleged tariff violations and other claims must be calculated by rerunning the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate; however, it includes estimates of refunds associated with some, but not all, of its claims, totaling $286 million without interest. The City Council’s rebuttal testimony also proposes a new, alternate theory and claim for relief regarding System Energy’s participation in the Entergy System money pool, under which it calculates estimated refunds of approximately $51.7 million. The APSC’s rebuttal testimony agrees with the LPSC’s direct testimony that retained earnings should be adjusted in a comprehensive refund calculation. The testimony quantifies the estimated impacts of three issues: (1) a $1.5 million reduction in the revenue requirement under the Unit Power Sales Agreement if System Energy’s borrowings from the money pool are included in short-term debt; (2) a $1.9 million reduction in the revenue requirement if System Energy’s allocated share of money pool earnings are credited through the Unit Power Sales Agreement; and (3) a $1.9 million reduction in the revenue requirement for every $50 million of refunds ordered in a given year, without interest. In total, excluding the settled issues noted below, the claims seek more than $700 million in refunds and interest, based on charges to all Unit Power Sales Agreement purchasers including Entergy Mississippi.

In June 2022 a new procedural schedule was adopted, providing for additional rounds of testimony and for the hearing to begin in September 2022. The hearing concluded in December 2022. Also in December 2022, a motion to extend the briefing schedule and the deadline for the initial decision was granted. The initial decision is due in May 2023.

In November 2022, System Energy filed a partial settlement agreement with the APSC, the City Council, and the LPSC that resolves the following issues raised in the Unit Power Sales Agreement complaint: advance collection of lease payments, aircraft costs, executive incentive compensation, money pool borrowings, advertising expenses, deferred nuclear refueling outage costs, industry association dues, and termination of the capital funds agreement. The settlement provides that System Energy will provide a black-box refund of $18 million (inclusive of interest), plus additional refund amounts with interest to be calculated for certain issues to be distributed to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans as the Utility operating companies other than Entergy Mississippi purchasing under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The settlement further provides that if the APSC, the City Council, or the LPSC agrees to the global settlement System Energy entered into with the MPSC (discussed below), and such global settlement includes a black-box refund amount, then the black-box refund for this settlement agreement shall not be incremental or in addition to the global black-box refund amount. The settlement agreement addresses other matters as well, including adjustments to rate base beginning in October 2022,

exclusion of certain other costs, and inclusion of money pool borrowings, if any, in short-term debt within the cost of capital calculation used in the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The settlement agreement is pending FERC approval.

LPSC Petition for Writ of Mandamus

In August 2022 the LPSC filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to order the FERC to act within ninety days on certain pending proceedings, including the Grand Gulf prudence complaint, the return on equity and capital structure complaints, and the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback renewal complaint. In September 2022 the FERC and System Energy filed oppositions to the LPSC’s petition, and the APSC and the City Council filed interventions in support of the petition. In December 2022 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the petition. In January 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order directing the FERC to explain the length of time it takes for final action on complaints filed under section 206 of the Federal Power Act, including the complaint proceedings raised by the LPSC’s petition. In February 2023 the FERC responded, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order denying the petition.

Grand Gulf Prudence Complaint

The second of the additional complaints was filed at the FERC in March 2021 by the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council against System Energy, Entergy Services, Entergy Operations, and Entergy Corporation. The second complaint contains two primary allegations. First, it alleges that, based on the plant’s capacity factor and alleged safety performance, System Energy and the other respondents imprudently operated Grand Gulf during the period 2016-2020, and it seeks refunds of at least $360 million in alleged replacement energy costs, in addition to other costs, including those that can only be identified upon further investigation. Second, it alleges that the performance and/or management of the 2012 extended power uprate of Grand Gulf was imprudent, and it seeks refunds of all costs of the 2012 uprate that are determined to result from imprudent planning or management of the project. In addition to the requested refunds, the complaint asks that the FERC modify the Unit Power Sales Agreement to provide for full cost recovery only if certain performance indicators are met and to require pre-authorization of capital improvement projects in excess of $125 million before related costs may be passed through to customers in rates. In April 2021, System Energy and the other respondents filed their motion to dismiss and answer to the complaint. System Energy requested that the FERC dismiss the claims within the complaint. With respect to the claim concerning operations, System Energy argues that the complaint does not meet its legal burden because, among other reasons, it fails to allege any specific imprudent conduct. With respect to the claim concerning the uprate, System Energy argues that the complaint fails because, among other reasons, the complainants’ own conduct prevents them from raising a serious doubt as to the prudence of the uprate. System Energy also requests that the FERC dismiss other elements of the complaint, including the proposed modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement, because they are not warranted. Additional responsive pleadings were filed by the complainants and System Energy during the period from March through July 2021. In November 2022 the FERC issued an order setting the complaint for settlement and hearing procedures. In February 2023 the FERC issued an order denying rehearing and thereby affirming its order setting the complaint for settlement and hearing procedures. Settlement procedures are ongoing.

System Energy Formula Rate Annual Protocols Formal Challenge Concerning 2020 Calendar Year Bills

System Energy’s Unit Power Sales Agreement includes formula rate protocols that provide for the disclosure of cost inputs, an opportunity for informal discovery procedures, and a challenge process. In February 2022, pursuant to the protocols procedures, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed with the FERC a formal challenge to System Energy’s implementation of the formula rate during calendar year 2020. The formal challenge alleges: (1) that it was imprudent for System Energy to accept the IRS’s partial acceptance of a previously uncertain tax position; (2) that System Energy should have delayed recording the result of the IRS’s partial acceptance of the previously uncertain tax position until after internal tax allocation payments were made; (3) that the equity ratio charged in rates was excessive; (4) that sale-leaseback

rental payments should have been excluded from rates; and (5) that all issues in the ongoing Unit Power Sales Agreement complaint proceeding should also be reflected in calendar year 2020 bills. While System Energy disagrees that any refunds are owed for the 2020 calendar year bills, the formal challenge estimates that the financial impact of the first through fourth allegations is approximately $53 million; it does not provide an estimate of the financial impact of the fifth allegation. However, $17 million of the $53 million is attributable to the sale-leaseback rental payments. These were refunded to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans in January 2023 as a result of the FERC order received in the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback renewal complaint and uncertain tax position rate base issue. Entergy Mississippi’s portion of the refund was included within the settlement with the MPSC, as discussed below.

In March 2022, System Energy filed an answer to the formal challenge in which it requested that the FERC deny the formal challenge as a matter of law, or else hold the proceeding in abeyance pending the resolution of related dockets.

System Energy Settlement with the MPSC

In June 2022, System Energy, Entergy Mississippi, and additional named Entergy parties involved in thirteen docketed proceedings before the FERC filed with the FERC a partial settlement agreement and offer of settlement. The settlement memorializes the Entergy parties’ agreement with the MPSC to globally resolve all actual and potential claims between the Entergy parties and the MPSC associated with those FERC proceedings and with System Energy’s past implementation of the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The Unit Power Sales Agreement is a FERC-jurisdictional formula rate tariff for sales of energy and capacity from System Energy’s owned and leased share of Grand Gulf to Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans. Entergy Mississippi purchases the greatest single amount, nearly 40% of System Energy’s share of Grand Gulf, after its additional purchases from affiliates are considered. The settlement therefore limits System Energy’s overall refund exposure associated with the identified proceedings because they will be resolved completely as between the Entergy parties and the MPSC.

The FERC proceedings that are resolved as between the Entergy parties and the MPSC include the return on equity and capital structure complaints, the Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback renewal complaint and uncertain tax position rate base issue, the Unit Power Sales Agreement complaint, and the Grand Gulf prudence complaint, all of which are discussed above. They also include the proceedings concerning System Energy’s return of excess accumulated deferred income taxes after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the proceedings established to address System Energy’s October 2020 and December 2020 Federal Power Act section 205 filings to provide credits to customers related to the IRS’s decision as to the uncertain decommissioning tax position, also as discussed. The settlement also resolves the MPSC’s involvement in the formal challenge filed by the retail regulators of System Energy’s customers in connection with the implementation of the Unit Power Sales Agreement annual formula rate protocols for the 2020 test year, which is discussed above.

The settlement provides for a black-box refund of $235 million from System Energy to Entergy Mississippi, which was to be paid within 120 days of the settlement’s effective date (either the date of the FERC approval of the settlement without material modification, or the date that all settling parties agree to accept modifications or otherwise modify the settlement in response to a proposed material modification by the FERC). In addition, beginning with the July 2022 service month, the settlement provides for Entergy Mississippi’s bills from System Energy to be adjusted to reflect: an authorized rate of return on equity of 9.65%, a capital structure not to exceed 52% equity, a rate base reduction for the advance collection of sale-leaseback rental costs, and the exclusion of certain long-term incentive plan performance unit costs from rates.

The settlement was expressly contingent upon the approval of the FERC and the MPSC. It was approved by the MPSC in June 2022 and the FERC in November 2022. The remaining retail regulators of Entergy’s utility operating company purchasers under the Unit Power Sales Agreement (the APSC, the LPSC, and the City Council) were offered an option to elect to join the settlement, but none of them has elected to do so yet.

System Energy previously recorded a provision and associated liability of $37 million for elements of the applicable litigation. In June 2022, System Energy recorded a regulatory charge of $551 million ($413 million net-of-tax), increasing the regulatory liability to $588 million, which consisted of $235 million for the settlement with the MPSC and $353 million for potential future refunds to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans. System Energy paid the black-box refund of $235 million to Entergy Mississippi in November 2022. In addition, as discussed above in “Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue,” $103.5 million of the total remaining regulatory liability of $353 million was reclassified to a current regulatory liability as of December 31, 2022 to reflect the refunds being paid to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans in January 2023 as a result of the FERC’s order in December 2022 on those issues.

Unit Power Sales Agreement

In December 2021, System Energy submitted to the FERC proposed amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement to adopt updated rates for use in calculating Grand Gulf plant depreciation and amortization expenses. The proposed amendments would result in higher charges to the Utility operating companies that buy capacity and energy from System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In February 2022 the FERC accepted System Entergy’s proposed increased depreciation rates with an effective date of March 1, 2022, subject to refund pending the outcome of the settlement and/or hearing procedures. Settlement procedures are ongoing.

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy Louisiana

Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida

In August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of Entergy Louisiana’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild.

In October 2020, Entergy Louisiana filed an application at the LPSC seeking approval of certain ratemaking adjustments in connection with the issuance of shorter-term mortgage bonds to provide interim financing for restoration costs associated with Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta. Subsequently, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint motion seeking approval to exclude from the derivation of Entergy Louisiana’s capital structure and cost rate of debt for ratemaking purposes, including the allowance for funds used during construction, shorter-term debt up to $1.1 billion issued by Entergy Louisiana to fund costs associated with Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta costs on an interim basis. In November 2020 the LPSC issued an order approving the joint motion, and Entergy Louisiana issued $1.1 billion of 0.62% Series mortgage bonds due November 2023. Also in November 2020, Entergy Louisiana withdrew $257 million from its funded storm reserves.

In February 2021 two winter storms (collectively, Winter Storm Uri) brought freezing rain and ice to Louisiana. Ice accumulation sagged or downed trees, limbs, and power lines, causing damage to Entergy Louisiana’s transmission and distribution systems. The additional weight of ice caused trees and limbs to fall into power lines and other electric equipment. When the ice melted, it affected vegetation and electrical equipment, causing additional outages. As discussed above in “Fuel and purchased power recovery,” Entergy Louisiana recovered the incremental fuel costs associated with Winter Storm Uri over a five-month period from April 2021 through August 2021.

In April 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri restoration costs and in July 2021, Entergy Louisiana made a supplemental filing updating the total restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by these storms were estimated to be approximately $2.06 billion, including approximately $1.68 billion in capital costs and approximately $380 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs through January 2022, Entergy Louisiana sought an LPSC determination that $2.11 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, was eligible for recovery from customers. Additionally, Entergy Louisiana requested that the LPSC determine that re-establishment of a storm escrow account to the previously authorized amount of $290 million was appropriate. In July 2021, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021.

In August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused extensive damage to Entergy Louisiana’s distribution and, to a lesser extent, transmission systems resulting in widespread power outages. In September 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application at the LPSC seeking approval of certain ratemaking adjustments in connection with the issuance of approximately $1 billion of shorter-term mortgage bonds to provide interim financing for restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida, which bonds were issued in October 2021. Also in September 2021, Entergy Louisiana sought approval for the creation and funding of a $1 billion restricted escrow account for Hurricane Ida related restoration costs, subject to a subsequent prudence review.

After filing of testimony by the LPSC staff and intervenors, which generally supported or did not oppose Entergy Louisiana’s requests in regard to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida, the parties negotiated and executed an uncontested stipulated settlement which was filed with the LPSC in February 2022. The settlement agreement contained the following key terms: $2.1 billion of restoration costs from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri were prudently incurred and were eligible for recovery; carrying costs of $51 million were recoverable; a $290 million cash storm reserve should be re-established; a $1 billion reserve should be established to partially pay for Hurricane Ida restoration costs; and Entergy Louisiana was authorized to finance $3.186 billion utilizing the securitization process authorized by Act 55, as supplemented by Act 293. The LPSC issued an order approving the settlement in March 2022. As a result of the financing order, Entergy Louisiana reclassified $1.942 billion from utility plant to other regulatory assets.

In May 2022 the securitization financing closed, resulting in the issuance of $3.194 billion principal amount of bonds by Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority (LCDA), a political subdivision of the State of Louisiana. The securitization was authorized pursuant to the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation Act, Part VIII of Chapter 9 of Title 45 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana legislature approved in 2021. The LCDA loaned the proceeds to the LURC. Pursuant to Act 293, the LURC contributed the net bond proceeds to a State legislatively authorized and LURC-sponsored trust, Restoration Law Trust I (the storm trust).

Pursuant to Act 293, the net proceeds of the bonds were used by the storm trust to purchase 31,635,718.7221 Class A preferred, non-voting membership interest units (the preferred membership interests) issued by Entergy Finance Company, LLC, a majority-owned indirect subsidiary of Entergy. Entergy Finance Company is required to make annual distributions (dividends) commencing on December 15, 2022 on the preferred membership interests issued to the storm trust. These annual dividends received by the storm trust will be distributed to Entergy Louisiana and the LURC, as beneficiaries of the storm trust. Specifically, 1% of the annual dividends received by the storm trust will be distributed to the LURC, for the benefit of customers, and 99% will be distributed to Entergy Louisiana, net of storm trust expenses. The preferred membership interests have a stated annual cumulative cash dividend rate of 7% and a liquidation price of $100 per unit. The terms of the preferred membership interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Finance Company is subject.

Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds issued by the LCDA on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LCDA. The bonds are secured by system restoration property, which is the right granted by law to the LURC to collect a system restoration charge from customers. The system restoration charge is adjusted at least semi-annually to ensure that it is sufficient to service the bonds. Entergy Louisiana collects the system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee. Entergy Louisiana began collecting the system restoration charge effective with the first billing cycle of June 2022 and the system restoration charge is expected to remain in place up to 15 years. Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as a billing and collection agent for the LCDA and the LURC. In the remote possibility that the system restoration charge, as well as any funds in the excess subaccount and funds in the debt service reserve account, are insufficient to service the bonds resulting in a payment default, the storm trust is required to liquidate Entergy Finance Company preferred membership interests in an amount equal to what would be required to cure the default. The estimated value of this indirect guarantee is immaterial.

From the proceeds from the issuance of the preferred membership interests, Entergy Finance Company distributed $1.4 billion to its parent, Entergy Holdings Company, LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy. Subsequently, Entergy Holdings Company liquidated, distributing the $1.4 billion it received from Entergy Finance Company to Entergy Louisiana as holder of 6,843,780.24 units of Class A, 4,126,940.15 units of Class B, and 2,935,152.69 units of Class C preferred membership interests. Entergy Louisiana had acquired these preferred membership interests with proceeds from previous securitizations of storm restoration costs. Entergy Finance Company loaned the remaining $1.7 billion from the preferred membership interests proceeds to Entergy which used the cash to redeem $650 million of 4.00% Series senior notes due July 2022 and indirectly contributed $1 billion to Entergy Louisiana as a capital contribution.

Entergy Louisiana used the $1 billion capital contribution to fund its Hurricane Ida escrow account and subsequently withdrew the $1 billion from the escrow account. With a portion of the $1 billion withdrawn from the escrow account and the $1.4 billion from the Entergy Holdings Company liquidation, Entergy Louisiana deposited $290 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for future storms, used $1.2 billion to repay its unsecured term loan due June 2023, and used $435 million to redeem a portion of its 0.62% Series mortgage bonds due November 2023.

As discussed in Note 3 to the financial statements, the securitization resulted in recognition of a reduction of income tax expense of approximately $290 million by Entergy Louisiana. Entergy’s recognition of reduced income tax expense was partially offset by other tax charges resulting in a net reduction of income tax expense of $283 million. In recognition of obligations related to an LPSC ancillary order issued as part of the securitization regulatory proceeding, Entergy Louisiana recorded a $224 million ($165 million net-of-tax) regulatory charge and a corresponding regulatory liability to reflect its obligation to share the benefits of the securitization with customers.

As discussed in Note 17 to the financial statements, Entergy Louisiana consolidates the storm trust as a variable interest entity and the LURC’s 1% beneficial interest is shown as noncontrolling interest in the financial statements. In second quarter 2022, Entergy Louisiana recorded a charge of $31.6 million in other income to reflect the LURC’s beneficial interest in the trust.

In April 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Ida restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Ida currently are estimated to be approximately $2.54 billion, including approximately $1.96 billion in capital costs and approximately $586 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs of $57 million through December 2022, Entergy Louisiana is seeking an LPSC determination that $2.60 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, is eligible for recovery from customers. As part of this filing, Entergy Louisiana also is seeking an LPSC determination that an additional $32 million in costs associated with the restoration of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta as well as Winter Storm Uri was prudently incurred. This amount is exclusive of the requested $3 million in carrying costs through December 2022.

In total, Entergy Louisiana is requesting an LPSC determination that $2.64 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, is eligible for recovery from customers. As discussed above, in March 2022 the LPSC approved financing of a $1 billion storm escrow account from which funds were withdrawn to finance costs associated with Hurricane Ida restoration. In June 2022, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021. In October 2022 the LPSC staff recommended a finding that the requested storm restoration costs of $2.64 billion, including associated carrying costs of $59.1 million, were prudently incurred and are eligible for recovery from customers. The LPSC staff further recommended approval of Entergy Louisiana’s plans to securitize these costs, net of the $1 billion in funds withdrawn from the storm escrow account described above. The parties negotiated and executed an uncontested stipulated settlement which was filed with the LPSC in December 2022. The settlement agreement contains the following key terms: $2.57 billion of restoration costs from Hurricane Ida, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri were prudently incurred and were eligible for recovery; carrying costs of $59.2 million were recoverable; and Entergy Louisiana was authorized to finance $1.657 billion utilizing the securitization process authorized by Act 55, as supplemented by Act 293. A procedural motion to consider the uncontested settlement at the December 2022 LPSC meeting did not pass and the settlement was not voted on. In January 2023 an ALJ with the LPSC conducted a settlement hearing to receive the uncontested settlement and supporting testimony into evidence and issued a report of proceedings, which allows the LPSC to consider the uncontested settlement without the procedural motion that did not pass in December. In January 2023, the LPSC staff approved the stipulated settlement subject to certain modifications. These modifications include the recognition of accumulated deferred income tax benefits related to damaged assets and system restoration costs as a reduction of the amount authorized to be financed utilizing the securitization process authorized by Act 55, as supplemented by Act 293, from $1.657 billion to $1.491 billion. These modifications do not affect the staff’s conclusion that all system restoration costs sought by Entergy Louisiana were reasonable and prudent. The LPSC order is not yet final and non-appealable due to the forty-five day appeal period. In February 2023 the Louisiana Bond Commission voted to authorize the LCDA to issue the bonds authorized in the LPSC’s financing order; the bond rating and marketing process has yet to occur.

Hurricane Isaac

In August 2012, Hurricane Isaac caused extensive damage to Entergy Louisiana’s service area. In June 2014 the LPSC authorized Entergy Louisiana to utilize Louisiana Act 55 financing for Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs. Entergy Louisiana committed to pass on to customers a minimum of $30.8 million of customer benefits through annual customer credits of approximately $6.2 million for five years. Approvals for the Act 55 financings were obtained from the LURC and the Louisiana State Bond Commission.

In August 2014 the LCDA issued $314.85 million in bonds under Louisiana Act 55. From the $309 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LCDA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $16 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $293 million directly to Entergy Louisiana. Entergy Louisiana used the $293 million received from the LURC to acquire 2,935,152.69 Class C preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC that carry a 7.5% annual distribution rate. Distributions were payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2014, and the membership interests had a liquidation price of $100 per unit. The preferred membership interests were callable at the option of Entergy Holdings Company after ten years under the terms of the LLC agreement. The terms of the membership interests included certain financial covenants to which Entergy Holdings Company was subject, including the requirement to maintain a net worth of at least $1.75 billion. As discussed above in “Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida”, in May 2022, Entergy Holdings Company liquidated and distributed cash to Entergy Louisiana as holder of the 2,935,152.69 units of Class C preferred membership interests.

Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds issued by the LCDA on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LCDA and there is no recourse against Entergy or Entergy Louisiana in the event

of a bond default. To service the bonds, Entergy Louisiana collects a system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee. Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as the billing and collection agent for the state.

In the first quarter 2020, Entergy and the IRS agreed upon and settled on the treatment of funds received by Entergy Louisiana in conjunction with the Act 55 financing of Hurricane Isaac storm costs, which resulted in a net reduction of income tax expense of approximately $32 million. As a result of the settlement, the position was partially sustained and Entergy Louisiana recorded a reduction of income tax expense of approximately $58 million primarily due to the reversal of liabilities for uncertain tax positions in excess of the agreed-upon settlement. Entergy recorded an increase to income tax expense of $26 million primarily resulting from the reduction of the deferred tax asset, associated with utilization of the net operating loss as a result of the settlement. This adjustment recorded by Entergy also accounted for the tax rate change of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. As a result of the IRS settlement, Entergy Louisiana recorded a $29 million ($21 million net-of-tax) regulatory charge and a corresponding regulatory liability to reflect its obligation to customers pursuant to the LPSC Hurricane Isaac Act 55 financing order.

Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike

In September 2008, Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike caused catastrophic damage to Entergy Louisiana’s service territory. In December 2009, Entergy Louisiana entered into a stipulation agreement with the LPSC staff regarding its storm costs. In March and April 2010, Entergy Louisiana and other parties to the proceeding filed with the LPSC an uncontested stipulated settlement that included Entergy Louisiana’s proposal to utilize Act 55 financing, which included a commitment to pass on to customers a minimum of $43.3 million of customer benefits through a prospective annual rate reduction of $8.7 million for five years. In April 2010 the LPSC approved the settlement and subsequently issued financing orders and a ratemaking order intended to facilitate the implementation of the Act 55 financings. In June 2010 the Louisiana State Bond Commission approved the Act 55 financing. The settlement agreement allowed for an adjustment to the credits if there was a change in the applicable federal or state income tax rate. As a result of the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in December 2017, and the lowering of the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%, the Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation regulatory liability related to Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike was reduced by $2.7 million, with a corresponding increase to Other regulatory credits on the income statement. The effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are discussed further in Note 3 to the financial statements.

In July 2010 the LCDA issued two series of bonds totaling $713.0 million under Act 55. From the $702.7 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LCDA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $290 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $412.7 million directly to Entergy Louisiana. From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Louisiana used $412.7 million to acquire 4,126,940.15 Class B preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy, that carry a 9% annual distribution rate. Distributions were payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2010, and the membership interests had a liquidation price of $100 per unit. The preferred membership interests were callable at the option of Entergy Holdings Company LLC after ten years under the terms of the LLC agreement. The terms of the membership interests included certain financial covenants to which Entergy Holdings Company LLC was subject, including the requirement to maintain a net worth of at least $1 billion. As discussed above in “Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida”, in May 2022, Entergy Holdings Company liquidated and distributed cash to Entergy Louisiana as holder of the 4,126,940.15 units of Class B preferred membership interests.

The bonds were repaid in 2022. Entergy and Entergy Louisiana did not report the bonds issued by the LCDA on their balance sheets because the bonds were the obligation of the LCDA, and there was no recourse against Entergy or Entergy Louisiana in the event of a bond default. To service the bonds, Entergy Louisiana collected a system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC and remitted the collections to the bond indenture

trustee. Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as the billing and collection agent for the state.

Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita

In August and September 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused catastrophic damage to Entergy Louisiana’s service territory. In March 2008, Entergy Louisiana and the LURC filed at the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant a financing order authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55. Entergy Louisiana also filed an application requesting LPSC approval for ancillary issues including the mechanism to flow charges and savings to customers via a storm cost offset rider. In April 2008 the Louisiana Public Facilities Authority (LPFA), which is the issuer of the bonds pursuant to the Act 55 financing, approved requests for the Act 55 financing. Also in April 2008, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed with the LPSC an uncontested stipulated settlement that included Entergy Louisiana’s proposal under the Act 55 financing, which included a commitment to pass on to customers a minimum of $40 million of customer benefits through a prospective annual rate reduction of $8 million for five years. The LPSC subsequently approved the settlement and issued two financing orders and one ratemaking order intended to facilitate implementation of the Act 55 financing. In May 2008 the Louisiana State Bond Commission granted final approval of the Act 55 financing. The settlement agreement allowed for an adjustment to the credits if there was a change in the applicable federal or state income tax rate. As a result of the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in December 2017, and the lowering of the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%, the Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation regulatory liability related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita was reduced by $22.3 million, with a corresponding increase to Other regulatory credits on the income statement. The effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are discussed further in Note 3 to the financial statements.

In July 2008 the LPFA issued $687.7 million in bonds under the aforementioned Act 55. From the $679 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LPFA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $152 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $527 million directly to Entergy Louisiana. From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Louisiana invested $545 million, including $17.8 million that was withdrawn from the restricted escrow account as approved by the April 16, 2008 LPSC orders, in exchange for 5,449,861.85 Class A preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy, that carry a 10% annual distribution rate. In August 2008 the LPFA issued $278.4 million in bonds under the aforementioned Act 55. From the $274.7 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LPFA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $87 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $187.7 million directly to Entergy Louisiana. From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Louisiana invested $189.4 million, including $1.7 million that was withdrawn from the restricted escrow account as approved by the April 16, 2008 LPSC orders, in exchange for 1,893,918.39 Class A preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company that carry a 10% annual distribution rate. Distributions were payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2008 and had a liquidation price of $100 per unit. The preferred membership interests were callable at the option of Entergy Holdings Company LLC after ten years under the terms of the LLC agreement. The terms of the membership interests included certain financial covenants to which Entergy Holdings Company was subject, including the requirement to maintain a net worth of at least $1 billion. In February 2012, Entergy Louisiana sold 500,000 of its Class A preferred membership units in Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a wholly-owned Entergy subsidiary, to a third party. Those preferred membership units were subsequently repurchased by Entergy Holdings Company in March 2019. As discussed above in “Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida”, in May 2022, Entergy Holdings Company liquidated and distributed cash to Entergy Louisiana as holder of the remaining 6,843,780.24 units of Class A preferred membership interests.

The bonds were repaid in 2018. Entergy and Entergy Louisiana did not report the bonds issued by the LPFA on their balance sheets because the bonds were the obligation of the LPFA, and there was no recourse against Entergy or Entergy Louisiana in the event of a bond default. To service the bonds, Entergy Louisiana collected a

system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC and remitted the collections to the bond indenture trustee. Entergy and Entergy Louisiana did not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana was merely acting as the billing and collection agent for the state.

Entergy Mississippi

Entergy Mississippi has approval from the MPSC to collect a storm damage provision of $1.75 million per month. If Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated storm damage provision balance exceeds $15 million, the collection of the storm damage provision ceases until such time that the accumulated storm damage provision becomes less than $10 million. Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance has been less than $10 million since May 2019, and Entergy Mississippi has been billing the monthly storm damage provision since July 2019.

Entergy New Orleans

Hurricane Zeta

In October 2020, Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. In March 2021, Entergy New Orleans withdrew $44 million from its funded storm reserves. In May 2021, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council requesting approval and certification that its system restoration costs associated with Hurricane Zeta of approximately $36 million, which included $7 million in estimated costs, were reasonable and necessary to enable Entergy New Orleans to restore electric service to its customers and Entergy New Orleans’s electric utility infrastructure. In May 2022 the City Council advisors issued a report recommending that the City Council find that Entergy New Orleans acted prudently in restoring service following Hurricane Zeta and approximately $33 million in storm restoration costs were prudently incurred and recoverable. Additionally, the advisors concluded that approximately $7 million of the $44 million withdrawn from its funded storm reserve was in excess of Entergy New Orleans’s costs and should be considered in Entergy New Orleans’s application for certification of costs related to Hurricane Ida. In September 2022 the City Council issued a resolution finding that Entergy New Orleans’s system restoration costs were reasonable and necessary, and that Entergy New Orleans acted prudently in restoring electricity following Hurricane Zeta. The City Council also found that approximately $33 million in storm costs were recoverable.

Hurricane Ida

In August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused significant damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area, including Entergy’s electrical grid. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, including the loss of 100% of Entergy New Orleans’s load and damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, including the loss of connectivity to the eastern interconnection. In September 2021, Entergy New Orleans withdrew $39 million from its funded storm reserves. In June 2022, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council requesting approval and certification that storm restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida of approximately $170 million, which included $11 million in estimated costs, were reasonable, necessary, and prudently incurred to enable Entergy New Orleans to restore electric service to its customers and to repair Entergy New Orleans’s electric utility infrastructure. In addition, estimated carrying costs through December 2022 related to Hurricane Ida restoration costs were $9 million. Also, Entergy New Orleans is requesting approval that the $39 million withdrawal from its funded storm reserve in September 2021 and $7 million in excess storm reserve escrow withdrawals related to Hurricane Zeta and prior miscellaneous storms are properly applied to Hurricane Ida storm restoration costs, the application of which reduces the amount to be recovered from Entergy New Orleans customers by $46 million. In November 2022 the City Council adopted a procedural schedule regarding the certification of the Hurricane Ida storm restoration costs in which the hearing officer shall certify the record for City Council consideration no later than August 2023.

Additionally, in February 2022, Entergy New Orleans and the LURC filed with the City Council a securitization application requesting that the City Council review Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve and increase the storm reserve funding level to $150 million, to be funded through securitization. In August 2022 the City Council’s advisors recommended that the City Council authorize a single securitization bond issuance to fund Entergy New Orleans’s storm recovery reserves to an amount sufficient to: (1) allow recovery of all of Entergy New Orleans’s unrecovered storm recovery costs following Hurricane Ida, subject to City Council review and certification; (2) provide initial funding of storm recovery reserves for future storms to a level of $75 million; and (3) fund the storm recovery bonds’ upfront financing costs. In September 2022, Entergy New Orleans and the City Council’s advisors entered into an agreement in principle, which was approved by the City Council along with a financing order in October 2022, authorizing Entergy New Orleans and the LURC to proceed with a single securitization bond issuance of approximately $206 million (subject to further adjustment and review pursuant to the Final Issuance Advice Letter process set forth in the financing order), with $125 million of that total to be used for interim recovery, subject to City Council review and certification, to be allocated to unrecovered Hurricane Ida storm recovery costs; $75 million of that total to provide for a storm recovery reserve for future storms; and the remainder to fund the recovery of the storm recovery bonds’ upfront financing costs.

In December 2022, Entergy New Orleans and the LURC filed with the City Council the Final Issuance Advice Letter for a securitization bond issuance in the amount of $209.3 million, the final structuring, terms, and pricing of which were approved by the City Council in accordance with the financing order. Also in December 2022 the LCDA issued $209.3 million in bonds pursuant to the Louisiana Electric Utility Storm Recovery Securitization Act, Part V-B of Chapter 9 of Title 45 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Regular Session of 2021. The LCDA loaned $201.8 million of bond proceeds, net of certain debt service and issuance costs, to the LURC. The LURC used the proceeds to purchase from Entergy New Orleans the storm recovery property, which is the right to collect storm recovery charges sufficient to pay the storm recovery bonds and associated financing costs, and Entergy New Orleans deposited $200 million in a restricted storm reserve escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy New Orleans and received directly $1.8 million in estimated upfront financing costs. Subsequently, Entergy New Orleans withdrew $125 million from the newly securitized storm reserve to cover Hurricane Ida storm recovery costs, subject to a final determination from the City Council regarding the prudency of the storm recovery costs.

Entergy and Entergy New Orleans do not report the bonds issued by the LCDA on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LCDA, and there is no recourse against Entergy or Entergy New Orleans in the event of a bond default. To service the bonds, Entergy New Orleans collects a storm recovery charge on behalf of the LURC and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee. Entergy and Entergy New Orleans do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy New Orleans is merely acting as the billing and collection agent for the LURC.

Entergy Texas

Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Winter Storm Uri

In August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura and Hurricane Delta caused extensive damage to Entergy Texas’s service area. In February 2021, Winter Storm Uri also caused damage to Entergy Texas’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. In April 2021, Entergy Texas filed an application with the PUCT requesting a determination that approximately $250 million of system restoration costs associated with Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Winter Storm Uri, including approximately $200 million in capital costs and approximately $50 million in non-capital costs, were reasonable and necessary to enable Entergy Texas to restore electric service to its customers and Entergy Texas’s electric utility infrastructure. The filing also included the projected balance of approximately $13 million of a regulatory asset containing previously approved system restoration costs related to Hurricane Harvey. In September 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement agreement, pursuant to which Entergy Texas removed from the amount to be securitized approximately $4.3 million

that will instead be charged to its storm reserve, $5 million related to no particular issue, of which Entergy Texas would be permitted to seek recovery in a future proceeding, and approximately $300 thousand related to attestation costs. In December 2021 the PUCT issued an order approving the unopposed settlement and determining system restoration costs of $243 million related to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Winter Storm Uri and the $13 million projected remaining balance of the Hurricane Harvey system restoration costs were eligible for securitization. The order also determines that Entergy Texas can recover carrying costs on the system restoration costs related to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Winter Storm Uri.

In July 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application for a financing order to approve the securitization of the system restoration costs that are the subject of the April 2021 application. In November 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement agreement supporting the issuance of a financing order consistent with Entergy Texas’s application and with minor adjustments to certain upfront and ongoing costs to be incurred to facilitate the issuance and serving of system restoration bonds. In January 2022 the PUCT issued a financing order consistent with the unopposed settlement. As a result of the financing order, Entergy Texas reclassified $153 million from utility plant to other regulatory assets.

In April 2022, Entergy Texas Restoration Funding II, LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy Texas, issued $290.85 million of senior secured system restoration bonds (securitization bonds). With the proceeds, Entergy Texas Restoration Funding II purchased from Entergy Texas the transition property, which is the right to recover from customers through a system restoration charge amounts sufficient to service the securitization bonds. Entergy Texas began cost recovery through the system restoration charge effective with the first billing cycle of May 2022 and the system restoration charge is expected to remain in place up to 15 years. See Note 5 to the financial statements for a discussion of the April 2022 issuance of the securitization bonds

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

Regulatory assets represent incurred costs that have been deferred because they are probable of future recovery from customers through regulated rates. Regulatory liabilities represent (1) revenue or gains that have been deferred because it is probable such amounts will be returned to customers through future regulated rates or (2) billings in advance of expenditures for approved regulatory programs. In addition to the regulatory assets and liabilities that are specifically disclosed on the face of the balance sheets, the tables below provide detail of “Other regulatory assets” and “Other regulatory liabilities” that are included on Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ balance sheets as of December 31, 2022 and 2021:

Other Regulatory Assets

Entergy


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)	$1,968.5	$2,327.7
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)	1,103.2	935.5
Removal costs (Note 9)	1,058.9	1,488.8
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators and Note 5 - Securitization Bonds)	841.3	993.6
Qualified Pension Settlement Cost Deferral - recovered through March 2034 (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Settlement Cost)	194.7	113.2
Retired electric and gas meters - recovered through retail rates as determined by retail regulators	166.8	179.4
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through formula rates or rate riders as rates are redetermined by retail regulators	160.0	69.2
Opportunity Sales - recovery will be determined after final order in proceeding (Note 2 - Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding) (b)	131.8	131.8

Deferred COVID-19 costs - recovered through retail rates as determined by retail regulators (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)	120.9	133.1
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	68.4	74.7
Pension & postretirement benefits expense deferral - recovery period will be determined after final order in rate case proceeding (Note 11 - Entergy Texas Reserve)	30.6	14.6
Formula rate plan historical year rate adjustment (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	18.2	19.0
Attorney General litigation costs - recovered over a six-year period through March 2026 (b)	15.7	20.5

Other	157.4	112.2
Entergy Total	$6,036.4	$6,613.3

Entergy Arkansas


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)	$597.6	$640.0
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)	562.7	489.2
Removal costs (Note 9)	267.1	224.3
Opportunity sales - recovery will be determined after final order in proceeding (Note 2 - Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding) (b)	131.8	131.8
Qualified Pension Settlement Cost Deferral - recovered through March 2034 (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Settlement Cost)	67.1	39.8
Retired electric meters - recovered over 15-year period through March 2034	39.8	43.4
Deferred COVID-19 costs - recovery period to be determined (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)	39.0	32.6
Storm damage costs - recovered through retail rates	35.9	39.3
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually (b)	26.4	1.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	21.4	23.1
ANO Fukushima and Flood Barrier costs - recovered through retail rates through February 2026 (b)	5.6	7.3
Other	15.9	17.9
Entergy Arkansas Total	$1,810.3	$1,689.7

Entergy Louisiana


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Plans and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)	$481.7	$592.7
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators)	472.8	773.6
Removal costs (Note 9)	418.8	848.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)	346.3	286.6
Qualified Pension Settlement Cost Deferral - recovered through March 2034 (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Settlement Cost)	93.9	55.0
Retired electric and gas meters - recovered over a 22-year period through July 2041	88.0	91.7
Deferred COVID-19 costs - recovery period to be determined (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)	47.8	56.3
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	25.1	26.9
Other	81.8	45.7
Entergy Louisiana Total	$2,056.2	$2,776.7

Entergy Mississippi


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Removal Costs (Note 9)	$159.4	$136.8
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)	148.8	175.4
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through formula rates or rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	101.3	48.1
Qualified Pension Settlement Cost Deferral - recovered through March 2034 (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Settlement Cost)	24.3	13.8

Formula rate plan historical year rate adjustment (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	18.2	19.0
Attorney General litigation costs - recovered over a six-year period through March 2026 (b)	15.7	20.5
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	10.9	12.2
Deferred COVID-19 costs - recovered over a three-year period through March 2025 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)	9.8	15.0
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)	6.3	8.4
Other	24.8	13.2
Entergy Mississippi Total	$519.5	$462.4

Entergy New Orleans


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Removal costs (Note 9)	$56.3	$91.7
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)	51.4	44.9
Retired electric and gas meters - recovered over a 12-year period through July 2031 (b)	17.6	19.6
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators and Note 5 - Entergy New Orleans Securitization Bonds - Hurricane Isaac)	17.2	31.2
Deferred COVID-19 costs - recovered over a five-year period beginning September 2023 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)	13.9	17.4
Qualified Pension Settlement Cost Deferral - recovered through March 2034 (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Settlement Cost)	9.4	4.5
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	1.2	1.6
Other	35.1	37.7
Entergy New Orleans Total	$202.1	$248.6

Entergy Texas


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators and Note 5 - Entergy Texas Securitization Bonds - Hurricane Ike and Gustav and Entergy Texas Securitization Bonds - Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Winter Storm Uri)	$315.4	$143.1
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)	100.5	96.0
Removal costs (Note 9)	62.9	98.1
Pension & postretirement benefits expense deferral - recovery period will be determined after final order in rate case proceeding (Note 11 - Entergy Texas Reserve)	30.6	14.6
Retired electric meters - recovered over a 13-year period through February 2032	21.4	23.7
Neches and Sabine costs - recovered over a 10-year period through September 2028	14.0	16.4
Deferred COVID-19 costs - recovery period will be determined after final order in rate case proceeding (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)	10.4	11.7
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	9.1	9.8

Other	14.4	7.9
Entergy Texas Total	$578.7	$421.3

System Energy


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (b)	$186.1	$144.4
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Plans and Other Postretirement Benefits) (a)	133.9	160.3
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9)	94.4	89.7
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	0.7	1.1
System Energy Total	$415.1	$395.5

(a)Does not earn a return on investment, but is offset by related liabilities.

(b)Does not earn a return on investment.

Other Regulatory Liabilities

Entergy


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 16) (a)	$1,237.9	$1,993.3
Securitization financing savings obligation (Note 3)	327.7	127.4
Complaints against System Energy - potential future refunds (Note 2) (b)	249.8	—
Retail rate over-recovery - refunded through formula rate or rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	180.2	126.5

Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8)	95.4	106.2
Entergy Arkansas’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and the FERC	44.4	44.4
Deferred tax equity partnership earnings (Note 1)	43.8	18.1
Asset retirement obligation - return to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)	43.5	45.5


Grand Gulf sale-leaseback (Note 2 - Grand Gulf Sale-Leaseback Transactions)	—	55.6

Other	101.9	126.8
Entergy Total	$2,324.6	$2,643.8

Entergy Arkansas


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 16) (a)	$428.2	$685.4
Deferred tax equity partnership earnings (Note 1)	22.4	18.1
Internal restructuring guaranteed customer credits	13.2	19.8
Retail rate rider over-recovery - refunded through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	3.9	18.9
Other	8.1	1.1
Entergy Arkansas Total	$475.8	$743.3

Entergy Louisiana


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 16) (a)	$438.9	$692.2
Securitization financing savings obligation (Note 3)	327.7	127.4
Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8)	95.4	106.2
Retail rate rider over-recovery - refunded through rate riders as rates are determined annually	87.7	30.7
Asset retirement obligation - return to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)	43.5	45.5
Derivative Instruments & Hedging Activities (Note 15)	16.0	11.4
Business combination guaranteed customer benefits - returned to customers through retail rates and fuel rates December 2015 through November 2024	10.5	16.0





Other	18.3	13.2
Entergy Louisiana Total	$1,038.0	$1,042.6

Entergy Mississippi


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Retail rate rider over-recovery - refunded through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	$58.2	$34.2
Deferred tax equity partnership earnings (Note 1)	21.4	—
Grand Gulf over-recovery - returned to customers through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	—	15.1
Other	0.3	—
Entergy Mississippi Total	$79.9	$49.3

Entergy Texas


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Retail refunds - return to customers to be determined	$25.5	$25.0
Retail rate rider over-recovery - return to customers to be determined	10.9	1.7
Securitization over-recovery - return to customers to be determined (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators and Note 5 - Entergy Texas Securitization Bonds - Hurricane Rita and Entergy Texas Securitization Bonds - Hurricane Ike and Hurricane Gustav)	8.8	0.4
Advanced metering system (AMS) surcharge - returned to customers dependent upon AMS spend	—	7.3
Income tax rate change - refunded through a rate rider (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	—	2.7

Entergy Texas Total	$45.2	$37.1

System Energy


	2022	2021
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 16) (a)	$370.8	$615.7
Complaints against System Energy - potential future refunds (Note 2) (b)	249.8	—
Entergy Arkansas’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and the FERC	44.4	44.4
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback (Note 2 - Grand Gulf Sale-Leaseback Transactions)	—	55.6
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback accumulated deferred income taxes (a)	—	25.6
Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - amortized and credited through the Unit Power Sales Agreement	—	3.6

System Energy Total	$665.0	$744.9