Entergy: Focusing on Today and the Future

Bank of America Merrill Lynch

2012 Power and Gas Leaders Conference

September 20, 2012

Filed by Entergy Corporation Pursuant to Rule 425

Under the Securities Act of 1933

Subject Company: Entergy Corporation

Commission File No. 001-11299

1

1

1

Caution Regarding Forward-looking Statements and

Caution Regarding Forward-looking Statements and

Regulation G Compliance

Regulation G Compliance

In

this

presentation,

and

from

time

to

time,

Entergy

Corporation

makes

certain

“forward-looking

statements”

within

the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  Except to the extent required by the federal

securities laws, Entergy undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements,

whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

Forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties. There are factors that could cause actual

results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements, including (a) those

factors discussed in: (i) Entergy’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, (ii) Entergy’s Form 10-Q for

the quarters ended March 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012 and (iii) Entergy’s other reports and filings made under the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934; (b) uncertainties associated with rate proceedings, formula rate plans and other

cost recovery mechanisms; (c) uncertainties associated with efforts to remediate the effects of major storms and

recover related restoration costs; (d) nuclear plant relicensing, operating and regulatory risks, including any

changes

resulting

from

the

nuclear

crisis

in

Japan

following

its

catastrophic

earthquake

and

tsunami;

(e) legislative and regulatory actions and risks and uncertainties associated with claims or litigation by or against

Entergy and its subsidiaries; (f) conditions in commodity and capital markets during the periods covered by the

forward-looking statements, in addition to other factors described elsewhere in this presentation and subsequent

securities filings; and (g) risks inherent in the proposed spin-off and subsequent merger of Entergy’s electric

transmission business with a subsidiary of ITC Holdings Corp. Entergy cannot provide any assurances that the

spin-off

and

merger

transaction

will

be

completed

and

cannot

give

any

assurance

as

to

the

terms

on

which

such

transaction will be consummated. The spin-off and merger transaction is subject to certain conditions precedent,

including regulatory approvals and approval by ITC Holdings Corp. shareholders.

This

presentation

includes

the

non-GAAP

measures

of

debt

to

capital,

excluding

securitization

debt,

gross

liquidity

and operational non-fuel operation and maintenance expense when describing Entergy’s results of operations and

financial performance.  We have prepared reconciliations of these measures to the most directly comparable

GAAP

measures.

These

reconciliations

can

be

found

on

slides

40

41.

Further

information

about

these

measures

can

be

found

in

Entergy’s

investor

earnings

releases,

which

are

posted

on

our

website

at

www.entergy.com.

2

2

2

Additional Information and Where to Find It

Additional Information and Where to Find It

ITC and Mid South TransCo LLC (“Transco”) will file registration statements with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (“SEC”) registering shares of ITC common stock and Transco common units to be issued to Entergy

shareholders in connection with the proposed transactions. ITC will also file a proxy statement with the SEC that

will be sent to the shareholders of ITC. Entergy shareholders are urged to read the prospectus and/or information

statement that will be included in the registration statements and any other relevant documents, because they

contain important information about ITC, Transco and the proposed transactions. ITC shareholders are urged to

read the proxy statement and any other relevant documents because they contain important information about

Transco and the proposed transactions. The proxy statement, prospectus and/or information statement, and other

documents relating to the proposed transactions (when they are available) can be obtained free of charge from

the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. The documents, when available, can also be obtained free of charge from

Entergy upon written request to Entergy Corporation, Investor Relations, P.O. Box 61000, New Orleans, LA 70161

or by calling Entergy’s Investor Relations information line at 1-888-ENTERGY (368-3749), or from ITC upon

written

request

to

ITC

Holdings

Corp.,

Investor

Relations,

27175

Energy

Way,

Novi,

MI

48377

or

by

calling

248-

946-3000.

3

3

3

Entergy

Entergy

Entergy’s Scope of Operations

Entergy’s

Businesses

•

30,000 MW electric generating capacity

•

One of the nation’s leading nuclear generators

•

2.8 million utility customers

•

More than $11 billion revenues

•

~15,000 employees

Utility

•

6 vertically integrated electric utilities

(5 retail regulators)

•

4 contiguous

states

–

Arkansas,

Louisiana,

Mississippi, Texas

•

~21,000 MW generating capacity

•

More than 15,800 miles high-voltage

transmission lines

Entergy Wholesale Commodities

6 nuclear units owned at 5 sites (5,011 MW)

2 gas, 1 gas / oil facilities (1,340 MW¹)

2 wind facilities (80 MW¹)

2 coal facilities (181 MW¹)

1 nuclear plant managed (800 MW)

Focus:

Focus:

Safety, Operational Excellence

Safety, Operational Excellence

and Portfolio Management

and Portfolio Management

1

EWC’s ownership interest

4

4

4

Utility

Utility

The Foundation

•

Safety

and

operational

excellence

What We’re Working On

•

Regulatory agenda

•

Storm recovery

•

MISO

•

Transmission

business

spin-merge with ITC

What’s Ahead

•

Capital

plan

management

•

Regulatory

constructs

5

5

5

An Active Regulatory Agenda

An Active Regulatory Agenda

Texas

•

PUCT issued final order in ETI’s rate case in Sep 2012; reflects a 9.8% return on

equity and a $27.7M base rate increase (ongoing EPS effect ~$0.01)

•

Awaiting Staff proposal on purchased power capacity rider; baseline amount

determined in rate case

Louisiana

•

Revised 2011 test year FRPs filed

Sep 2012; remain pending

-

New rates effective Sep 2012,

subject to refund

•

Base rate case filings to be made

by Jan 2013

Mississippi

•

Revised 2011 test year FRP filed

Apr 2012; remains pending

•

Hinds cost recovery through

rider approved Aug 2012; DOJ

review ongoing

•

MPSC inquiry on electric utility

ROE methodology opened Aug

2012

New Orleans

•

2011 test year FRP filed May

2012; remains pending

•

Seeking possible renewal or

extension of FRP (current 3-year

term ends with 2011 test year)

Arkansas

•

Hot Spring acquisition approved

Jul 2012, with cost recovery

through capacity rider; DOJ

review ongoing

•

Next base rate case expected to

be filed in 1Q13

General Regulatory Update

6

6

6

Liquidity and Recovery Options Available

Liquidity and Recovery Options Available

to Fund Hurricane Isaac Costs at Affected Utilities

to Fund Hurricane Isaac Costs at Affected Utilities

Preliminary Restoration Costs

$M

Company

Estimated Amount

EAI

10

EGSL

70 –

90

ELL

240 –

300

EMI

30 –

40

ENOI

50 –

60

Total

400 –

500

Sources of Liquidity

As of Aug 31, 2012; $M

Company

Cash and

Cash

Equiv

Funded

Storm

Reserves

Line of

Credit

Capacity

EAI

7

170

EGSL

177

87

150

ELL

185

187

200

EMI

24

32

70

ENOI

16

ETI

57

150

SERI

Other

53

Total utility

companies

322

740

All other

603

1,747

1

Total

1,106

2,487

Storm Cost Recovery Options

•

Accessing funded storm reserves

•

Securitization or other alternative

financing

•

Traditional retail recovery on an

interim and permanent basis

•

Insurance, to the extent coverage

is available and deductibles are

met

1

Board-authorized $500 million commercial paper program provides an

alternative to revolver borrowings

322

503

7

7

7

Doing Our Part to Keep Rates Low

Doing Our Part to Keep Rates Low

Net Benefits

1.1 –

1.4

Trade

Benefits

0.8

Value

Added

Benefits

0.8

Admin

Costs

(0.2)

Transmission

Cost Range

(0.3) to 0

2010 Present Value –

ETR Analysis

$B for 2013 –

2022; Filed May 12, 2011

Assumes All Utility OpCos Move to MISO

MISO Proposal

Entergy

Service

Territory

Joining MISO Benefits

All Stakeholders

8

8

8

MISO Preferred RTO Option for Customers

MISO Preferred RTO Option for Customers

MISO continues to offer superior benefits for our

customers and pursuit of SPP at this juncture cannot

be feasibly implemented in 2013

Operating, mature “Day 2”

market that will produce significant savings

for Utility customers

Path forward for all the Operating Companies following EAI’s departure

from the System Agreement in 2013

Cost allocation methodology with important protections for the

Operating Companies’

customers

Significant enhancements to governance model to respond to concerns

of certain regulators

Continue

to

believe

MISO

is

the

best

alternative

for

our

customers:

9

9

9

The Next Step, Complete Transmission Independence

The Next Step, Complete Transmission Independence

Utility

OpCos

Entergy

Wholesale

Commodities

Entergy

Shareholders

Illustrative

Mid South

TransCo LLC

(New Holdco)

ITC

Shareholders

ITC Merger

Sub

Transco Subs

Proposed Spin-Merge of Transmission Business

ITC After

ETR After

$700M

recapitalization

(pre-close)

ETR and

OpCos

reduce

debt by

$1.775B

$1.775B debt

transferred

with assets

Trust

Up to ~5%

ITC Shares

ITC

Shares

ETR

Shares

ETR

Shares

~5%

ITC Shares`

Expected closing in 2013

Entergy Shareholders will own stock in two companies

–

Generation

–

Distribution

–

Retail

customer

service

–

Transmission

10

10

10

The Benefits to Customers and Other Stakeholders

The Benefits to Customers and Other Stakeholders

•

Improves access to capital for transmission business and focuses

financial resources solely on transmission system performance

•

Strengthens ability of Entergy Operating Companies to make needed

investment in other areas of utility business

•

Ensures

safe

and

reliable

operations

and

continued

strengthening

of

overall grid performance through ITC’s singular focus on transmission

system performance, planning and operations

•

Leverages

Entergy

employees’

knowledge

and

experience

and

fully

utilizes Entergy’s world-class storm restoration process

•

Instills confidence in wholesale markets by encouraging greater

participation and disclosure by third parties

•

Leads to a more comprehensive planning process and a broader

regional view than would otherwise be possible

•

Provides proven business model for owning and operating transmission

systems

•

Aligns with national policy objectives to facilitate investment in local,

regional and inter-regional transmission, advance open access

initiatives and promote access to competitive energy markets

Operational

Excellence

Financial

Flexibility

and Growth

Independence

Fosters

Regional

Planning

11

11

11

Transmission Spin-Merge: Our Case Underway

Transmission Spin-Merge: Our Case Underway

Witness

Topic

Bill Mohl (LA) /

Charles Rice (NO)

ITC transaction benefits jurisdiction’s customers,

providing superior

business model, operational excellence and financial strength

Theo Bunting

ITC transaction benefits all stakeholders, particularly in

an era of grid modernization, and explains that this is the

right transaction, at the right time and with the right party

Phillip May

ITC transaction is in the public interest

Michael Tennican

ITC transaction is a sound strategy

for responding to industry

trends and expected capital requirements

Jay Lewis

ITC transaction is cost effective

Richard Riley

ITC’s singular focus

on transmission provides operational

efficiencies and regional planning

Richard Sergel

ITC’s superior business model

best supports national policies and

broad regional electric grid

Joseph Welch

ITC’s independent approach to transmission investment promotes a

regional view

and open and transparent collaboration

with

all stakeholders

Johannes

Pfeifenberger

An independent transmission company’s planning perspective

could provide benefits from “strategic”

transmission projects, the

types of projects that ITC would be uniquely positioned to plan,

develop and implement

Requests for Approval of Change of Ownership of Electric Transmission Businesses

LA Filed 9/5/12 (Docket U-32538)

NO Filed 9/12/12 (Docket UD-12-01)

Short-

Short-

and Long-run Benefits Will Offset a Modest

and Long-run Benefits Will Offset a Modest

Change in Retail Customers’

Change in Retail Customers’

Bills

Bills

Typical Residential Monthly Bill (1,000 kWh)

Base Case Scenario, 2014; $

Illustrative

Estimated bill effect resulting from

FERC rate construct

Base Case Scenario

Examples of potential benefits not

included:

0

20

40

60

80

100

ELL

EGSL

ENOI

MISO’s 2011 Transmission Expansion Plan

(“Business as Usual”

case), with various

refinements

Transmission investments that facilitate

competitive markets

Production cost savings from greater

dispatch flexibility

Capacity cost savings from access to

broader markets

Regional planning view

Addition of new generation

Continued

Entergy

ownership

12

13

13

13

Now and What’s Ahead: Prudently Managing

Now and What’s Ahead: Prudently Managing

the Utility Capital Investment Plan

the Utility Capital Investment Plan

Utility Capital Investment Plan

2012E –

2014E; % of Total –

Prepared Jan 2012

$6.0B

Other

Transmission

Other Generation

Portfolio

Transformation

Potential Investment Opportunities

•

New Generating Capacity

-

Acquire or contract with merchant

capacity

-

Construct and/or repower generating

facilities, potentially on existing

Entergy Utility sites

•

Environmental

-

Install controls to comply with new

laws and regulations (e.g.,

Mercury

and

Air

Toxics

Standards

/

MATS, Clean Air Interstate Rule /

CAIR, Clean Air Visibility Rule /

CAVR)

•

Transmission Investments

•

Other Infrastructure Requirements

1

Does not include the effect of increased cost estimate for the Grand Gulf uprate

project, which increased ~$120M (total including South Mississippi Electric

Power Assoc’s share) or investment resulting from Hurricane Isaac

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

12E

14E

–

1

14

14

14

(120)

(91)

0

322

Strategy and Recovery Mechanisms Key

Strategy and Recovery Mechanisms Key

Illustrative

Regulatory Mechanisms for Cost Recovery

X%

X%

Formula Rate Plans

Special Riders

Funded Storm Reserves

X%

X%

Earned

Re-set

2005

2012

Storm

balance

Cash

Reserves

•

Non-fuel O&M

•

Maintenance capital

•

Acquisitions

•

Capacity costs

•

Emission costs

•

Energy efficiency

•

Renewables

Earned

Re-set

Storm Balances/Reserves

$M

as

of

Jun

30

(except

cash

reserves

as

of

Aug

31)

15

15

15

Allowed Return on Equity Important;

Allowed Return on Equity Important;

Opportunity to Earn Even More So

Opportunity to Earn Even More So

FRP Filed Return on Equity

2011; %

Book Return on Equity

2011; %

2011 TY FRP pending

Seeking

FRP

extension

To file rate cases

by Jan 2013

Expected

to file

rate case

in 1Q13

2009

2009

Rate case

final order

Sep 2012

Last Authorized

ROE

Reflects electric operations only

Last Authorized

FRP ROE Range

ROE inquiry

initiated

Aug 2012

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

EGSL

ELL

EMI

ENOI

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

EAI

ETI

SERI

16

16

16

0

10

20

30

40

0

10

20

30

40

The Universal Bottom Line: Affordable Rates

The Universal Bottom Line: Affordable Rates

Utility Average Residential Customer Rates

2011; ¢

per kWh

Sources: EIA, internal analysis

Note: Regulated utilities, excluding primarily hydro-electric

Utility Average Residential Customer Rates with $30/mt Carbon Tax

2011; ¢

per kWh

ELL

EMI

EGSL

EAI

ENOI

ELL

ETI

EGSL

EMI

EAI

ENOI

ETI

17

17

17

Entergy Wholesale Commodities

Entergy Wholesale Commodities

The Foundation

•

Safety and operational

excellence

What We’re Working On

•

Portfolio management,

hedging strategy

What’s Ahead

•

Option value

•

Nuclear plant license

renewal

18

18

18

Today, Cautiously Optimistic on Northeast

Today, Cautiously Optimistic on Northeast

Power Prices

Power Prices

Illustrative

Market response

Unit shutdown

Environmental regulation

Out-of-market regulation

Ongoing gas oversupply

Potential 5-year out

view for

NE power prices¹

Source: New York Independent System Operator, ISO New England, internal analysis

Current forward: ~$50

Upside: ~$80

Downside: ~$40

1

Includes energy and capacity

Historical Northeast Market Power Prices (Energy Only)

$/MWh; Rolling Averages

Rolling 365-day Spot

Potential for improvement in heat rates, capacity markets, natural gas markets

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Jan-05

Jul-06

Jan-08

Jul-09

Jan-11

Jul-12

19

19

19

Commodity Prices –

Commodity Prices –

Potential Rebound through

Potential Rebound through

Capacity Pricing and/or Market Heat Rates

Capacity Pricing and/or Market Heat Rates

Today’s Challenges

•

Both NYISO and ISO-NE

–

Excess demand resources

–

Out-of-market entry rules

•

NYISO

–

Single state ISO

–

Short-term capacity markets

•

ISO-NE

–

Keeping floor price mechanism

beyond FCA7

Long-term Perspective

•

Demand recovery (e.g., economic growth)

•

Supply response to low prices

–

Retirement / mothballing of uneconomic units

–

Opt out / lost interest from demand resources

•

Environmental regulations and cost pressure

combined with low gas prices

•

Market structural considerations

–

Lower Hudson Valley zone

–

Out-of-market entry rules

ISO New England Reserve Margins

2011 –

2020E; %

New York ISO Reserve Margins

2011 –

2020E; %

Total

Target Reserve

Margin Range

With Accelerated

Retirements

Illustrative

Illustrative

Source: ISONE CELT report

Source: NYISO Goldbook

0

10

20

30

40

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

0

10

20

30

40

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

20

20

20

Signposts for Improvement in the New York

Signposts for Improvement in the New York

Capacity Markets

Capacity Markets

NYISO Rest of State Capacity Price

6 month moving average; $/kW-mo

Material Upside in

NY Capacity Markets

Potential mitigation of

Astoria Energy 2,

Bayonne

Requires ISO error

correction, transparency

Re-evaluation of HTP

Complaint against HTP

mitigation determination,

offer floor

Bayonne

and

AE2

Market design

under revision

Potential

Upside

Illustrative

Forward

Capacity

Markets

Source: NYISO auction results

FERC docket EL12-98

FERC decision EL11-42

FERC decision EL11-50

Supply reaction (mothballing,

retirements)

0

1

2

3

4

5

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

21

21

21

Our Point-of-view: Heat Rate Forwards Undervalued

Our Point-of-view: Heat Rate Forwards Undervalued

Northeast Average Market Heat Rate

12 month moving average; Btu/kWh

Undervalued Forward

Heat Rates

Heat Rates rise with

declining gas prices

Illustrative

Source: Derived from third party forward market data

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

12,000

15,000

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

5-10%

Heat Rate

Upside

Market Heat Rate Upside

Supply response to low

prices

-

Retirement /

mothballing of

uneconomic units

-

Opt out / lost interest

from demand

resources

Environmental

regulations and cost

pressure combined with

low gas prices

Demand recovery (e.g.,

economic growth)

22

22

22

50

55

60

65

70

1/1

3/1

5/1

7/1

9/1

11/1

2011

10

20

30

40

50

1/1

3/1

5/1

7/1

9/1

11/1

200

450

700

950

1,200

1/1

3/1

5/1

7/1

9/1

11/1

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

1/6

3/6

5/6

7/6

9/6

11/6

2012

EIA Demonstrated Capacity

Max Attained

Design Capacity

2011

5 Yr Avg

Natural Gas –

Natural Gas –

Recent Rationalization…

Recent Rationalization…

A Bottom Reached?

A Bottom Reached?

Storage Surplus

Gradually Eroding

U.S. Production Flatline?

Clearing Mechanism

Thus Far?

Gas Production

Total Gas Rigs; #

Power Generation Demand

Daily U.S. Power Generation; Bcf/d

Gas Storage Levels

Total U.S. Weekly Storage Level; Bcf

2012

Gas Production

U.S. Production; Bcf/d

2011

2010

2012

2010

Isaac Impact

2012

2010

2011

Source: EIA, internal analysis

Source: Ventyx, internal analysis

Source: Ventyx, internal analysis

Source: Smith Bits, internal analysis

23

23

23

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Bal 12E

13E

14E

15E

16E

Hedging Strategies Protect Near-term Value,

Hedging Strategies Protect Near-term Value,

While Retaining Longer-term Option

While Retaining Longer-term Option

%

Revenue

Contracted

3

EWC Nuclear Contracted Revenues

Balance

of

2012E

–

2016E;

as

of

Jun

30,

2012

Price, $/MWh

1

Assumes successful license renewal and uninterrupted normal operation at all plants

2

Includes contracted and merchant energy and capacity revenues, based on market prices as of

8/31/12

3

Reflects updated capacity sold forward that removes Vermont Yankee’s earlier allocations from

Forward

Capacity

Auctions

for

the

delivery

periods

from

Jun

2013

through

May

2015

%

of

Projected

Revenues

Contracted

1

Under

Contractf

Projected Revenue

(as of 8/31/12)

Optimizing hedge timing,

volumes and products

around POV

Market Price

(as of 8/31/12)

Cap operational and

liquidity risks

Allow for market upside

Cap downside, allow for

market upside

Maximize liquidity,

optimize timing, minimize

transaction costs

Mitigate operational risk,

lower UC costs

Using portfolio length,

including RISEC

Firm

products

with

call

options for post-license

renewal volumes

Optimizing UC / LD mix

Larger volumes of collars

2

Average Revenue

1,

3

24

24

24

Also Ahead, Securing Long-term Operations

Also Ahead, Securing Long-term Operations

at Indian Point, Benefiting Us and the Region

at Indian Point, Benefiting Us and the Region

Study findings –

impacts

associated with IPEC’s closure

include:

Source: An Assessment of Energy Needs in

Westchester County, a study prepared by Howard

J. Axelrod, PhD, prepared for The Business

Council of Westchester and the Westchester

Business Alliance (Sep 7, 2012)

•

NYISO

identified

multiple

reliability needs during the

study period (2013-2022),

even with IPEC remaining

in service through 2022

•

If

IPEC

is

retired

in

2016,

reliability violations would

occur immediately (base

case forecast assumptions)

-

Transmission analysis:

thermal violations

-

Under stress

conditions, voltage

performance degraded

Source: 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment

prepared by the New York Independent System

Operator (Sep 18, 2012)

Conclusion:

•

“All alternatives for

replacing IPEC are limited

and costly …each will

result in higher electric

prices for everyone in

New York State... [which]

will have adverse impacts

on the state’s economy...”

•

“[Politicians and

policymakers] should be

under no illusions that

closing IPEC will be

painless. It will not be.”

Source: The Center for Energy Policy and the

Environment at the Manhattan Institute report,

The Economic Impacts of Closing and

Replacing

the

Indian

Point

Energy

Center,

prepared by Jonathan A. Lesser, President,

Continental Economics (Sep 2012)

•

Higher electric prices

•

Loss

of

system

reliability

and voltage support

•

Deteriorating

air

quality

•

Loss

of

employment

and

economic output

Selected findings:

25

25

25

Entergy

Entergy

The Foundation

•

Safety, operational

excellence, portfolio

management

What We’re Working On

•

Financial strength and

flexibility

What’s Ahead

•

Actively engaged on

opportunities

26

26

26

Entity

Rating

(Outlook)

1

Rating (Outlook)

1

Entergy

Stable

BBB (Negative)

Baa3 (Stable)

EAI

Stable

A-

(Negative)

A3 (Stable)

EGSL

Stable

BBB+ (Negative)

A3 (Stable)

ELL

Stable

A-

(Negative)

A3 (Stable)

EMI

Stable

A-

(Negative)

Baa1 (Stable)

ENOI

Stable

BBB+ (Negative)

Baa3 (Stable)

ETI

Stable

BBB+ (Negative)

Baa2 (Stable)

SERI

Stable

BBB+ (Negative)

Baa1

Baa2 (Stable)

1

Entergy reflects Corporate Credit / Issuer rating; Operating Companies

reflect Senior Secured ratings

Credit Health Is Important

Credit Health Is Important

Debt to Capital, excluding Securitization Debt

2007 –

2011; %

Gross Liquidity

(Cash and Cash Equivalents + Revolver Capacity)

2007 –

2011; $B

Debt to capital

Year-end storm reserve escrow

account balance

Credit Ratings

57

59

56

55

55

0

20

40

60

80

07

08

09

10

11

3.0

2.6

3.2

3.6

2.7

0

1

2

3

4

5

07

08

09

10

11

27

27

27

Near-term Earnings Affected by Current Low Prices,

Near-term Earnings Affected by Current Low Prices,

Timing of Investment / Rate Actions

Timing of Investment / Rate Actions

Illustrative

2013 EPS Considerations –

Preliminary

Driver

Note

Sales

growth /

weather

Regulatory

outcomes

Level of

investment

Non-fuel O&M

expense

Can vary from year to year depending

on timing of expenditures,

asset acquisitions, pension discount rate, etc.

Price

Commodity markets, including prices for energy and capacity, as

well as hedging strategies

Capacity Factor

4 planned RFOs in 2013 vs 3 in 2012

Depreciation,

Decomm

Expenses

Nuclear fuel

trend; spending pressure

Vermont Yankee

Effective income

tax rate

Can vary from year to year and between business segments

(ranged 17%

34%

over last 5 years)

Ongoing expenses (depr, fuel, RFO amortiz) reduced as a result of

2012 impairment

$0.14 in 2012, $0.11 in 2013

Declining useful life for nuclear assets, reduction in ARO liability /

decommissioning expense recorded in 2Q12

$0.16

Investment timing –

acquisitions and construction projects can affect

AFUDC, rate actions; Grand Gulf uprate, W3 SGR to be completed in 2012;

See Regulatory and Investment Outlook slide

in Appendix I

See Regulatory and Investment Outlook slide

in Appendix I

$(0.09) negative weather YTD 2Q12, $(0.18) included in revised

guidance midpoint; 1 –

1.25% normalized weather-adjusted over time

28

In Conclusion

In Conclusion

The Foundation

What We’re Working On

What’s Ahead

•

Safety, operational

excellence

•

Regulatory agenda

•

Storm recovery

•

MISO

•

Transmission business

spin-merge with ITC

•

Capital plan

management

•

Regulatory constructs

•

Safety, operational

excellence

•

Portfolio management,

hedging strategy

•

Option value

•

Nuclear plant license

renewal

•

Safety, operational

excellence, portfolio

management

•

Financial strength and

flexibility

•

Pipeline of strategic

initiatives across the

company that:

Utility

EWC

Entergy

Bank of America Merrill Lynch

2012 Power and Gas Leaders Conference

September 20, 2012

Entergy: Focusing on Today and the Future

30

30

30

Appendix I

Appendix I

Additional Information

Additional Information

31

31

31

Utility –

Utility –

Regulatory and Investment Outlook

Regulatory and Investment Outlook

Co

Regulatory Calendar / Investment Considerations

EAI

•

Pending Hot Spring acquisition

•

File base rate case by 1Q13 (10 month statutory time limit)

EGSL

•

Outcome of 2011 TY FRP filing (effective 9/1/12)

•

File base rate case by Jan 2013 (12 month statutory time limit)

ELL

•

Outcome of 2011 TY FRP filing (effective 9/1/12)

•

Waterford 3 steam generator replacement project (target in-service year end

2012 and concurrent rate adjustment)

•

File base rate case by Jan 2013 (12 month statutory time limit)

EMI

•

Pending Hinds acquisition

•

Outcome of 2011 TY FRP filing (effective 6/1/12)

•

2012 TY FRP filing (effective 6/1/13)

ENOI

•

Outcome of 2011 TY FRP filing (effective 10/1/12)

•

Seeking extension of FRP that expired with 2011 TY

ETI

•

$27.7M base rate increase (effective 6/30/12; ongoing $0.01/sh impact)

•

Evaluation of next steps ongoing

SERI

•

Grand Gulf uprate in rate base beginning with Jul 2012 cost of service

Other

•

Recovery of Isaac storm restoration costs; some regulatory lag may be

experienced

Utility Rate Actions and Investment Considerations for 2013

32

32

32

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

08

09

10

11

12E

13E

14E

Utility –

Utility –

Non-fuel O&M Trends

Non-fuel O&M Trends

Utility Non-fuel O&M / Refueling Outage Expenses

2008 –

2014E; $M

Historical

Illustrative

Drivers

•

Varying compensation and

benefit costs (e.g., pension

discount rates)

•

Increased costs associated

with power plant

acquisitions

•

Spending on energy

efficiency programs (offset

in revenue)

~2 –

4%

¹

Annual

Growth

Rate

(can vary

by year)

1

Excludes expenses associated with the transmission spin-merge initiative, which are classified as

“special”

and not included in operational earnings

33

33

33

Northeast Markets –

Northeast Markets –

Forward Energy and Power Prices

Forward Energy and Power Prices

Northeast Nuclear Fleet Forward Energy Prices

Jan 2011 –

Aug 2012; Around-the-clock $/MWh; Excludes Palisades

NYISO Auction-cleared Capacity Prices

For delivery Jun 2010 –

Oct 2012; $/kW-mo

Source: Published prices per NYISO

Spot Auction

Monthly

Strip

ISO-NE Capacity Prices

For

delivery

Jun

2010

–

May

2016;

$/kW-mo

Source: Published prices per ISO-NE

1

ISO-NE

accepted

VY’s

bid

to

delist

for

the

Jun

2015

–

May

2016

FCA

#6

and

retroactively

for

the

Jun

2013

–

May

2014

FCA

#4

YTD 2012

$34

Bal 2012

$36

At 8/31/12

Cal 2013

$39

1

Trading in calendar year 2012 forward contracts ended by 12/31/11; the balance of the year price by 8/31/12 reflects the forward contracts from Oct

through Dec 2012

Source: Derived from third party data service

Forward Capacity Auctions

Reconfiguration Auctions

Monthly Auctions

1

1

34

34

34

Northeast Markets –

Northeast Markets –

New York Zone A Market Prices and Heat Rates

New York Zone A Market Prices and Heat Rates

NYISO Zone A

ATC Forward Prices ($/MWh)

NYISO Zone A

Implied Delivered Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)

Source: Derived from third party data service

YTD 2012

~10,800

Bal 2012

~9,800

Cal 2013

~8,700

YTD 2012

$27

Bal 2012

1

$32

Cal 2013

$33

At 8/31/12

At 8/31/12

1

Trading in calendar year 2012 forward contracts ended by 12/31/11; the balance of the year price by 8/31/12 reflects the forward contracts from Oct

through Dec 2012

Source: Derived from third party data service

25

35

45

55

01/11

04/11

07/11

10/11

01/12

04/12

07/12

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

01/11

04/11

07/11

10/11

01/12

04/12

07/12

35

35

35

Northeast Markets –

Northeast Markets –

New York Zone G Market Prices and Heat Rates

New York Zone G Market Prices and Heat Rates

NYISO Zone G

ATC Forward Prices ($/MWh)

NYISO Zone G

Implied Delivered Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)

Source: Derived from third party data service

YTD 2012

~12,100

Bal 2012

~11,500

Cal 2013

~10,600

YTD 2012

$36

Bal 2012

¹

$37

Cal 2013

$41

At 8/31/12

At 8/31/12

1

Trading in calendar year 2012 forward contracts ended by 12/31/11; the balance of the year price by 8/31/12 reflects the forward contracts from Oct

through Dec 2012

Source: Derived from third party data service

35

45

55

65

01/11

04/11

07/11

10/11

01/12

04/12

07/12

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

01/11

04/11

07/11

10/11

01/12

04/12

07/12

36

36

36

Northeast Markets –

Northeast Markets –

New England Market Prices and Heat Rates

New England Market Prices and Heat Rates

ISO-NE MASS Hub

ATC Forward Prices ($/MWh)

ISO-NE MASS Hub

Implied Delivered Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)

Source: Derived from third party data service

YTD 2012

~9,900

Bal 2012

~9,400

Cal 2013

~8,800

YTD 2012

$33

Bal 2012

1

$38

Cal 2013

$40

At 8/31/12

At 8/31/12

1

Trading in calendar year 2012 forward contracts ended by 12/31/11; the balance of the year price by 8/31/12 reflects the forward contracts from Oct

through Dec 2012

Source: Derived from third party data service

35

45

55

65

01/11

04/11

07/11

10/11

01/12

04/12

07/12

7,500

8,500

9,500

10,500

01/11

04/11

07/11

10/11

01/12

04/12

07/12

37

37

37

EWC –

EWC –

Nuclear Fuel Trends

Nuclear Fuel Trends

Nuclear Fuel Projections

2011

–

2015E;

$M

1

Uranium Price, Production and Demand

Production

(lbs)

Demand (lbs)

Current Market Price Levels

Appear to Support Sufficient

Future Production Capacity

Price

Source: The Ux Consulting Company, LLC (UxC) (production and demand); Trade Tech (price)

Illustrative

0

150

120

90

60

30

0

250

200

150

100

50

Expense (pre-tax)

Capital Spend

$5

$8/MWh

(2012E –

2015E)

Note: Assumes successful license renewal and uninterrupted normal operation at all plants

11

12E

13E

14E

15E

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12E

13E

14E

15E

16E

38

38

38

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

08

09

10

11

12E

13E

14E

EWC –

EWC –

Non-fuel O&M Trends

Non-fuel O&M Trends

EWC Non-fuel O&M / Refueling Outage Amortization

2008 –

2014E; $M

Special items

Nuclear

Non-

nuclear

History

Illustrative

Drivers

•

Varying compensation

and benefit costs (e.g.,

pension discount rates)

•

Higher NRC fees and new

regulatory requirements

•

Workforce planning

•

Acquisition of Rhode

Island State Energy Center

at end of 2011

Note:

Assumes successful license renewal and uninterrupted normal operation at all plants

1

Excludes

VY

impairment

recorded

in

2012,

which

was

classified

as

a

special

and

excluded

from

operational

earnings,

excludes

purchased

power expense

~2 –

4%

Annual

Growth

Rate

(can vary

by year)

1

39

39

39

Appendix II

Appendix II

Regulation G Reconciliations

Regulation G Reconciliations

40

40

40

Regulation G Reconciliations

Regulation G Reconciliations

Table 1:

Entergy

Consolidated

Debt

to

Capital,

Excluding

Securitization

Debt

and

Gross

Liquidity

Reconciliation of GAAP to Non-GAAP Measures

2007 –

2011

($ in millions)

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Gross debt

(a)

11,123

12,279

12,014

11,816

12,387

Less securitization debt

(b)

330

310

838

931

1,071

Gross debt, excluding securitization debt

(c)

10,793

11,969

11,176

10,885

11,316

Total capitalization

(d)

19,297

20,557

20,939

20,623

21,629

Less securitization debt

(e)

330

310

838

931

1,071

Total capitalization, excluding securitization debt

(f)

18,967

20,247

20,101

19,692

20,558

Debt to capital ratio

(a)/(d)

57.6%

59.7%

57.4%

57.3%

57.3%

Debt to capital ratio, excluding securitization debt

(c)/(f)

56.9%

59.1%

55.6%

55.3%

55.0%

Cash and cash equivalents

(g)

1,254

1,920

1,710

1,294

694

Revolver capacity

(h)

1,730

645

1,464

2,354

2,001

Gross liquidity

(g)+(h)

2,984

2,565

3,174

3,648

2,695

41

41

41

Regulation G Reconciliations

Regulation G Reconciliations

Table

2:

Entergy

Wholesale

Commodities

Non-fuel

O&M

Reconciliation of GAAP to Non-GAAP Measures

2009 and 2010

($ in millions)

2009

2010

As-reported Non-fuel O&M

(a)

1,058

1,195

Less Special Items

Non-utility

nuclear

spin-off

expenses

48

117

Total Special Items

(b)

48

117

Operational Non-fuel O&M

(a)-(b)

1,010

1,078

1

Non-fuel O&M is defined as operation, maintenance and refueling expenses, excluding fuel and

investments in wind generation accounted for under the equity method of accounting

2

Includes non-utility nuclear spin-off dis-synergies and expenses for outside services to pursue the

previously planned spin-off in 2009 and 2010 and the charge in connection with the business unwind in

2010

1

2