NOTE 2. RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

Regulatory Assets

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that information.

Fuel and Purchased Power Cost Recovery

Entergy Louisiana

In April 2010 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana's fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009. The LPSC Staff issued its audit report in January 2013. The LPSC staff recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $1.9 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $1 million from Entergy Louisiana's fuel adjustment clause to base rates. The recommended refund was made by Entergy Louisiana in May 2013 in the form of a credit to customers through its fuel adjustment clause filing. Two parties have intervened in the proceeding. A procedural schedule has been established for the identification of issues by the intervenors and for Entergy Louisiana to submit comments regarding the LPSC Staff report and any issues raised by intervenors. One intervenor is seeking further proceedings regarding certain issues it raised in its comments on the LPSC Staff report. Entergy Louisiana has filed responses to both the LPSC Staff report and the issues raised by the intervenor. As required by the procedural schedule, a joint status report was submitted in October 2013 by the parties. That report requests that a status conference be convened by the ALJ to address open issues, including whether further proceedings will be required. A status conference has been scheduled for December 5, 2013.

Entergy Texas

In November 2012, Entergy Texas filed a pleading seeking a PUCT finding that special circumstances exist for limited cost recovery of capacity costs associated with two purchased power agreements until such time that these costs are included in base rates or a purchased capacity recovery rider or other recovery mechanism. In March 2013 the PUCT Staff and intervenors filed a joint motion to dismiss Entergy Texas's application seeking special circumstances recovery of these capacity costs. Entergy Texas filed to withdraw this case without prejudice and the judge granted the request in June 2013.

At the April 11, 2013 open meeting, the PUCT Commissioners discussed their view that a purchased power capacity rider was good public policy. The PUCT issued an order on May 28, 2013 adopting the rule allowing for a purchased power capacity rider, subject to an offsetting adjustment for load growth. The rule, as adopted, also includes a process for obtaining pre-approval by the PUCT of purchased power agreements. Entergy Texas has not exercised the option to recover its capacity costs under the new rider mechanism due to the pending base rate case filed with the PUCT in September 2013, but will continue to evaluate the benefits of utilizing the new rider to recover future capacity costs.

Retail Rate Proceedings

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that information.

Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas)

Retail Rates

2013 Base Rate Filing

In March 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. Recognizing that the final structure of Entergy Arkansas's transmission business has not been determined, the filing presents two alternative scenarios for the APSC to establish the appropriate level of rates for Entergy Arkansas. In the primary scenario, which assumes that Entergy Arkansas will transition to MISO in December 2013, Entergy Arkansas requests a rate increase of $174 million, including $49 million of revenue being transferred from collection in riders to base rates. The alternate scenario, which also assumes completion of the proposed spin-merge of the transmission business with ITC, reflects a $218 million total rate increase request. Both scenarios propose a new transmission rider and a capacity cost recovery rider. The filing requests a 10.4% return on common equity. In September 2013 Entergy Arkansas filed testimony reflecting an updated rate increase request of $145 million in the primary scenario, with no change to its requested return on common equity of 10.4%. Hearings in the proceeding began in October 2013, and an APSC decision is pending. New rates are expected to become effective by January 2014.

Filings with the LPSC

Retail Rates - Electric

(Entergy Gulf States Louisiana)

In November 2011 the LPSC approved a one-year extension of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana's formula rate plan. In May 2012, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana made its formula rate plan filing with the LPSC for the 2011 test year. The filing reflected an 11.94% earned return on common equity, which is above the earnings bandwidth and would indicate a $6.5 million cost of service rate decrease was necessary under the formula rate plan. The filing also reflected a $22.9 million rate decrease for the incremental capacity rider. Subsequently, in August 2012, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted a revised filing that reflected an earned return on common equity of 11.86% indicating a $5.7 million cost of service rate decrease is necessary under the formula rate plan. The revised filing also indicates that a reduction of $20.3 million should be reflected in the incremental capacity rider. The rate reductions were implemented, subject to refund, effective for bills rendered the first billing cycle of September 2012. Subsequently, in December 2012, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted a revised evaluation report that reflects expected retail jurisdictional cost of $16.9 million for the first-year capacity charges for the purchase from Entergy Louisiana of one-third of Acadia Unit 2 capacity and energy. This rate change was implemented effective with the first billing cycle of January 2013. The 2011 test year filings, as revised, were approved by the LPSC in February 2013. In April 2013, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted a revised evaluation report increasing the incremental capacity rider by approximately $7.3 million to reflect the cost of an additional capacity contract.

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the base rate case filed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana with the LPSC in February 2013. In April 2013 the LPSC established a procedural schedule providing for hearings in November 2013, with a decision by the LPSC expected in 2014. On July 26, 2013, with the concurrence of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana based upon an expected 60-day delay of the procedural schedule, the ALJ suspended the procedural schedule pending resolution of the appeal by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff regarding the ALJ's denial of a motion to consolidate the rate cases of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana. At an August 2013 meeting the LPSC rejected the proposed consolidation. The base rate case is currently scheduled for an evidentiary hearing in February 2014. An extension of the deadline for the filing of the staff's and intervenors' testimony was granted to allow for settlement negotiations, which are ongoing.

(Entergy Louisiana)

In November 2011 the LPSC approved a one-year extension of Entergy Louisiana's formula rate plan. In May 2012, Entergy Louisiana made its formula rate plan filing with the LPSC for the 2011 test year. The filing reflected a 9.63% earned return on common equity, which is within the earnings bandwidth and results in no cost of service rate change under the formula rate plan. The filing also reflected an $18.1 million rate increase for incremental capacity costs. In August 2012, Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised filing that reflects an earned return on common equity of 10.38%, which is still within the earnings bandwidth, resulting in no cost of service rate change. The revised filing also indicates that an increase of $15.9 million should be reflected in the incremental capacity rider. The rate change was implemented, subject to refund, effective for bills rendered the first billing cycle of September 2012. Subsequently, in December 2012, Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised evaluation report that reflects two items: 1) a $17 million reduction for the first-year capacity charges for the purchase by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana from Entergy Louisiana of one-third of Acadia Unit 2 capacity and energy, and 2) an $88 million increase for the first-year retail revenue requirement associated with the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, which was in-service in December 2012. These rate changes were implemented, subject to refund, effective with the first billing cycle of January 2013. In April 2013, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint report resolving the 2011 test year formula rate plan and recovery related to the Grand Gulf uprate. This report was approved by the LPSC in April 2013. With completion of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, the LPSC is conducting a prudence review in connection with a filing made by Entergy Louisiana in April 2013 with regard to the following aspects of the replacement project: 1) project management; 2) cost controls; 3) success in achieving stated objectives; 4) the costs of the replacement project; and 5) the outage length and replacement power costs. A procedural schedule for the prudence review has not yet been established.

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the base rate case filed by Entergy Louisiana with the LPSC in February 2013. In April 2013 the LPSC established a procedural schedule providing for hearings in December 2013, with a decision by the LPSC expected in 2014. On July 26, 2013, with the concurrence of Entergy Louisiana based upon an expected 60-day delay of the procedural schedule, the ALJ suspended the procedural schedule pending resolution of the appeal by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff regarding the ALJ's denial of a motion to consolidate the rate cases of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana. At an August 2013 meeting the LPSC rejected the proposed consolidation. A new procedural schedule was established calling for an evidentiary hearing in December 2013. Entergy Louisiana submitted an opposed motion to modify the procedural schedule to allow for settlement negotiations, which are ongoing. The motion was granted and the evidentiary hearing has been rescheduled to occur in January 2014.

Retail Rates - Gas (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana)

In January 2013, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2012. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 11.18%, which resulted in a $43 thousand rate reduction. In March 2013 the LPSC Staff issued its proposed findings and recommended two adjustments. The first is to normalize property insurance expense, and the second is to modify the return on equity for gas operations to reflect the return on equity that ultimately is approved by the LPSC in the investigation previously initiated by the LPSC to review the return on equity for Louisiana gas utilities. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the LPSC Staff reached agreement regarding the LPSC Staff's proposed adjustments. As reflected in an unopposed joint report of proceedings filed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the LPSC Staff on May 16, 2013, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana accepted, with modification, the LPSC Staff's proposed adjustment to property insurance expense and agreed to: (1) a three-year extension of the gas rate stabilization plan with a midpoint return on equity of 9.95%, with a first year midpoint reset; (2) dismissal of the docket initiated by the LPSC to evaluate the allowed return on equity for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana's gas rate stabilization plan; and (3) presentation to the LPSC by November 2014 by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the LPSC Staff of their recommendation for implementation of an infrastructure rider to recover expenditures associated with strategic plant investment. The LPSC approved the agreement in May 2013.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Formula Rate Plan Filings

In March 2013, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2012 test year filing. The filing requested a $36.3 million revenue increase to reset Entergy Mississippi's return on common equity to 10.55%, which is a point within the formula rate plan bandwidth. On June 6, 2013, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation, in which both parties agreed that the MPSC should approve a $22.3 million rate increase for Entergy Mississippi which, with other adjustments reflected in the stipulation, would have the effect of resetting Entergy Mississippi's return on common equity to 10.59% when adjusted for performance under the formula rate plan. In August 2013 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation between Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff authorizing the rate increase effective with September 2013 bills. Additionally, the MPSC authorized Entergy Mississippi to defer approximately $1.2 million in MISO-related implementation costs incurred in 2012 along with other MISO-related implementation costs to be incurred in 2013.

Filings with the City Council

(Entergy Louisiana)

In March 2013, Entergy Louisiana filed a rate case for the Algiers area, which is in New Orleans and is regulated by the City Council. Entergy Louisiana is requesting a rate increase of $13 million over three years, including a 10.4% return on common equity and a formula rate plan mechanism identical to its LPSC request. Hearings are scheduled for April 2014. New rates are currently expected to become effective in second quarter 2014.

(Entergy New Orleans)

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2012, Entergy New Orleans filed its electric and gas formula rate plan evaluation reports for the 2011 test year. In August 2013 the City Council unanimously approved a settlement of all issues in the formula rate plan proceeding. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Entergy New Orleans implemented an approximately $1.625 million net decrease to the electric rates that were in effect prior to the electric rate increase implemented in October 2012, with no change in gas rates. Entergy New Orleans is in the process of refunding to customers approximately $6.0 million over the four-month period from September 2013 through December 2013 to make the electric rate decrease effective as of the first billing cycle of October 2012. Entergy New Orleans had previously recorded provisions for the majority of the refund to customers, but recorded an additional $1.1 million provision in second quarter 2013 as a result of the settlement.

Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Texas)

2013 Rate Case

In September 2013, Entergy Texas filed a rate case requesting a $38.6 million base rate increase reflecting a 10.4% return on common equity based on an adjusted test year ending March 31, 2013. The rate case also proposed (1) a rough production cost equalization adjustment rider recovering Entergy Texas's payment to Entergy New Orleans to achieve rough production cost equalization based on calendar year 2012 production costs, (2) a rate case expense rider recovering the cost of the 2013 rate case and certain costs associated with previous rate cases, and (3) a transmission cost recovery factor rider recovering any differences in transmission costs and rate mitigation compared to those included in base rates to the extent the proposed spin-merge transaction with ITC Holdings Corp. is completed. The rate case filing also includes a request to reconcile $0.9 billion of fuel and purchased power costs and fuel revenues covering the period July 2011 through March 2013. The fuel reconciliation also reflects special circumstances fuel cost recovery of approximately $22 million of purchased power capacity costs. A procedural schedule has been set that includes staff testimony due in December 2013 and hearings in January 2014. If approved, new rates could go into effect as early as April 2014.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceedings regarding the System Agreement. Following are updates to that discussion.

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

2007 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2006 Production Costs

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. On October 16, 2013, the FERC issued two orders related to this proceeding. The first order provided clarification with regard to the derivation of the ratio that should be used to functionalize net operating loss carryforwards for purposes of the annual bandwidth filings. The second order denied Entergy's request for rehearing of the FERC's prior determination that interest should be included on recalculated payment and receipt amounts required in this particular proceeding due to the length of time that had passed.

2008 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2007 Production Costs

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In March 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit seeking appellate review of the FERC's earlier orders addressing the ALJ's initial decision.

2009 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2008 Production Costs

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In January 2013 the LPSC filed a protest of Entergy's July 2012 compliance filing submitted in response to the FERC's May 2012 order. On October 16, 2013, the FERC issued orders denying the LPSC's rehearing request with respect to the FERC's May 2012 order and addressing Entergy's compliance filing implementing the FERC's directives in the May 2012 order. The compliance filing order referred to guidance provided in a separate order issued on that same day in the 2007 rate proceeding with respect to the ratio used to functionalize net operating loss carryforwards for bandwidth purposes and directed Entergy to make an additional compliance filing in the 2009 rate proceeding consistent with the guidance provided in that order.

2010 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2009 Production Costs

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. On October 16, 2013, the FERC issued an order granting clarification and denying rehearing with respect to its October 6, 2011 rehearing order in this proceeding. The FERC clarified that in a bandwidth proceeding parties can challenge erroneous inputs, implementation errors, or prudence of cost inputs, but challenges to the bandwidth formula itself must be raised in a Federal Power Act section 206 complaint or section 205 filing. On October 18, 2013, the presiding ALJ lifted the stay order holding in abeyance the hearing previously ordered by the FERC and directing that the remaining issues proceed to a hearing on the merits.

It is probable that the October 2013 orders disclosed above will result in a reallocation of payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies to achieve production cost equalization as defined by the FERC orders. There is still significant uncertainty, however, as to the amount and allocation of these payments/receipts. This uncertainty relates to other pending orders associated with these rate filings, potential requests for further clarification from the FERC regarding the issued orders, and Entergy's legal strategy going forward. Any payments required by the Utility operating companies as a result of these rate filings are expected to be recoverable from customers, and any receipts are expected to be credited to customers. The effect of any such payments or receipts is not expected to be material to the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of Entergy or the Utility operating companies.

2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs

In May 2013, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2013 rates in accordance with the FERC's orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing shows the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies for 2013, based on calendar year 2012 production costs, commencing for service in June 2013, are necessary to achieve rough production cost equalization under the FERC's orders:

	Payments or (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$-
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana	$-
Entergy Louisiana	$-
Entergy Mississippi	$-
Entergy New Orleans	($15)
Entergy Texas	$15

Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which filed a protest as well. The City Council intervened and filed comments related to including the outcome of a related FERC proceeding in the 2013 cost equalization calculation. On August 31, 2013, FERC issued an order accepting the 2013 rates, effective June 1, 2013, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review.

Interruptible Load Proceeding

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceeding regarding the treatment under the System Agreement of the Utility operating companies' interruptible loads. On March 21, 2013, the FERC issued an order denying the LPSC's request for rehearing of the FERC's June 2011 order wherein the FERC concluded it would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in the interruptible load proceeding. Based on its review of the LPSC's request for rehearing and the briefs filed as part of the paper hearing established in October 2011, the FERC affirmed its earlier ruling and declined to order refunds under the circumstances of the case. On May 2, 2013, the LPSC filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking review of FERC's prior orders in the Interruptible Load Proceeding concluding that it would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in the proceeding. The appeal is pending.

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana

Hurricane Isaac

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of Hurricane Isaac and the damage caused to portions of Entergy's service area in Louisiana. In January 2013, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana withdrew $65 million and $187 million, respectively, from their storm reserve escrow accounts. In April 2013, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana filed a joint application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana requested that the LPSC determine the amount of such costs that were prudently incurred and are, thus, eligible for recovery from customers. Including carrying costs and additional storm escrow funds, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana is seeking an LPSC determination that $73.8 million in system restoration costs were prudently incurred and Entergy Louisiana is seeking an LPSC determination that $247.7 million in system restoration costs were prudently incurred. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana intend to replenish their storm escrow accounts to $90 million and $200 million, respectively, primarily through traditional debt markets and have requested special rate treatment of any borrowings for that purpose. In May 2013, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana filed a supplemental application proposing a specific means to finance system restoration costs and related requests. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana are proposing to finance Hurricane Isaac restoration costs through Louisiana Act 55 financing, which was the same method they used for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike.

The LPSC Staff filed direct testimony in September 2013 concluding that Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs incurred by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana were reasonable and prudent, subject to proposed minor adjustments which totaled approximately 1% of each company's costs. The LPSC Staff also supported the requests to re-establish storm reserves of $90 million for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and $200 million for Entergy Louisiana. One intervenor filed testimony recommending storm reserve levels of $70 million for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and $100 million for Entergy Louisiana, but takes no position on the prudence of the Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled in December 2013, with an LPSC decision expected in 2014.

Entergy Mississippi

On July 1, 2013, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation, wherein both parties agreed that approximately $32 million in storm restoration costs incurred in 2011 and 2012 were prudently incurred and chargeable to the storm damage reserve, while approximately $700,000 in prudently incurred costs were more properly recoverable through the formula rate plan. Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff also agreed that the storm damage accrual should be increased from $750,000 per month to $1.75 million per month. In September 2013 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with the increase in the storm damage accrual effective with October 2013 bills.

Texas Power Price Lawsuit

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the lawsuit filed in August 2003 in the district court of Chambers County, Texas by Texas residents on behalf of a purported class of the Texas retail customers of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. who were billed and paid for electric power from January 1, 1994 to the present. The case is pending in state district court, and in March 2012 the court found that the case met the requirements to be maintained as a class action under Texas law. In April 2012 the court entered an order certifying the class. The defendants have appealed the order to the Texas Court of Appeals – First District. The appeal is pending, and proceedings in district court are stayed until the appeal is resolved. Oral arguments before the court of appeals were conducted on April 23, 2013, and the matter awaits that court's decision.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the Entergy Arkansas opportunity sales proceeding. As required by the procedural schedule established in the calculation proceeding, Entergy filed its direct testimony that included a proposed illustrative re-run, consistent with the directives in FERC's order, of intra-system bills for 2003, 2004, and 2006, the three years with the highest volume of opportunity sales. Entergy's proposed illustrative re-run of intra-system bills shows that the potential cost for Entergy Arkansas would be up to $12 million for the years 2003, 2004, and 2006, and the potential benefit would be significantly less than that for each of the other Utility operating companies. Entergy's proposed illustrative re-run of the intra-system bills also shows an offsetting potential benefit to Entergy Arkansas for the years 2003, 2004, and 2006 resulting from the effects of the FERC's order on System Agreement Service Schedules MSS-1, MSS-2, and MSS-3, and the potential offsetting cost would be significantly less than that for each of the other Utility operating companies. Entergy provided to the LPSC an illustrative intra-system bill recalculation as specified by the LPSC for the years 2003, 2004, and 2006, and the LPSC then filed answering testimony in December 2012. In its testimony the LPSC claims that the damages that should be paid by Entergy Arkansas to the other Utility operating companies' customers for 2003, 2004, and 2006 are $42 million to Entergy Gulf States, Inc., $7 million to Entergy Louisiana, $23 million to Entergy Mississippi, and $4 million to Entergy New Orleans. The FERC staff and certain intervenors filed direct and answering testimony in February 2013. In April 2013, Entergy filed its rebuttal testimony in that proceeding, including a revised illustrative re-run of the intra-system bills for the years 2003, 2004, and 2006. The revised calculation determines the re-pricing of the opportunity sales based on consideration of moveable resources only and the removal of exchange energy received by Entergy Arkansas, which increases the potential cost for Entergy Arkansas over the three years 2003, 2004, and 2006 by $2.3 million from the potential costs identified in the Utility operating companies' prior filings in September and October 2012. A hearing was held in May 2013 to quantify the effect of repricing the opportunity sales in accordance with the FERC's decision.

In August 2013 the presiding judge issued an initial decision. The initial decision concludes that the methodology proposed by the LPSC, rather than the methodologies proposed by Entergy or the FERC Staff, should be used to calculate the payments that Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The initial decision also concludes that the other System Agreement service schedules should not be adjusted and that payments by Entergy Arkansas should not be reflected in the rough production cost equalization bandwidth calculations for the applicable years. The initial decision does recognize that the LPSC's methodology would result in an inequitable windfall to the other Utility operating companies and, therefore, concludes that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%. The Utility operating companies are currently analyzing the effects of the initial decision. The initial decision and record in the case have been forwarded to the FERC for review. The LPSC, APSC, City Council, and FERC staff filed briefs on exceptions and/or briefs opposing exceptions. Entergy filed a brief on exceptions requesting that FERC reverse the initial decision and a brief opposing certain exceptions taken by the LPSC and FERC staff. The FERC's review of the initial decision is pending. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing the initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order.

Rate And Regulatory Matters