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.

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 LPSC

Retail Rates - Gas (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana)

In January 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2013. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 5.47%, which results in a $1.5 million rate increase. In April 2014 the LPSC Staff issued a report indicating "that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana has properly determined its earnings for the test year ended September 30, 2013." The $1.5 million rate increase was implemented effective with the first billing cycle of April 2014.

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 made in February 2013. In January 2014, the City Council Advisors filed direct testimony recommending a rate increase of $5.56 million over three years, including an 8.13% return on common equity. New rates are currently expected to become effective in second quarter 2014. The procedural schedule calls for the hearing on the merits to commence on May 20, 2014.

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 and (2) a rate case expense rider recovering the cost of the 2013 rate case and certain costs associated with previous rate cases. The rate case filing also included 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. In January 2014 the PUCT staff filed direct testimony recommending a retail rate reduction of $0.3 million and a 9.2% return on common equity. In March 2014, Entergy Texas filed an Agreed Motion for Interim Rates. The motion explained that the parties to this proceeding have agreed that Entergy Texas should be allowed to implement new rates reflecting an $18.5 million base rate increase, effective for usage on and after April 1, 2014, as well as recovery of charges for rough production cost equalization and rate case expenses. In March 2014, the State Office of Administrative Hearings, the body assigned to hear the case, approved the motion. In April 2014, Entergy Texas filed a unanimous stipulation in this case. Among other things, the stipulation provides for an $18.5 million base rate increase, recovery over three years of rough production cost equalization charges and rate case expenses (the same as the interim rates currently in effect), and states a 9.8% return on common equity. In addition, the stipulation finalizes the fuel and purchased power reconciliation covering the period July 2011 through March 2013, with the parties stipulating an immaterial fuel disallowance. No special circumstances recovery of purchased power costs was allowed. In April 2014, the State Office of Administrative Hearings remanded the case back to the PUCT for final processing. A memorandum filed in this matter by the PUCT’s ALJ indicates that the PUCT will consider this matter at its open meeting currently scheduled for May 16, 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, including the FERC’s October 2011 order and Entergy’s December 2011 compliance filing in response to that order. In February 2014 the FERC issued a rehearing order addressing its October 2011 order. The FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing on the issues of whether the bandwidth remedy should be made effective earlier than June 1, 2005, and whether refunds should be ordered for the 20-month refund effective period. The FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request on the issue of interest on the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period, requiring that interest be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date those bandwidth payments/receipts are made. Also in February 2014 the FERC issued an order rejecting the December 2011 compliance filing that calculated the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. The FERC order requires a new compliance filing that calculates the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period based on monthly data for the seven individual months and that includes interest pursuant to the February 2014 rehearing order. Entergy has sought rehearing of the February 2014 orders with respect to the FERC’s determinations regarding interest.

In April 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC a compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s February 2014 orders. The filing shows the following net payments and receipts, including interest, among the Utility operating companies:



	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$67
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana	($33)
Entergy Louisiana	$—
Entergy Mississippi	($11)
Entergy New Orleans	$2
Entergy Texas	($25)

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy New Orleans

As discussed in the Form 10-K, total restoration costs for the repair and replacement of Entergy New Orleans’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Isaac were $47.3 million. Entergy New Orleans withdrew $17.4 million from the storm reserve escrow account to partially offset these costs. In February 2014, Entergy New Orleans made a filing with the City Council seeking certification of the Hurricane Isaac costs.

Rate And Regulatory Matters

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.

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 LPSC

Retail Rates - Gas (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana)

In January 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2013. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 5.47%, which results in a $1.5 million rate increase. In April 2014 the LPSC Staff issued a report indicating "that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana has properly determined its earnings for the test year ended September 30, 2013." The $1.5 million rate increase was implemented effective with the first billing cycle of April 2014.

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 made in February 2013. In January 2014, the City Council Advisors filed direct testimony recommending a rate increase of $5.56 million over three years, including an 8.13% return on common equity. New rates are currently expected to become effective in second quarter 2014. The procedural schedule calls for the hearing on the merits to commence on May 20, 2014.

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 and (2) a rate case expense rider recovering the cost of the 2013 rate case and certain costs associated with previous rate cases. The rate case filing also included 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. In January 2014 the PUCT staff filed direct testimony recommending a retail rate reduction of $0.3 million and a 9.2% return on common equity. In March 2014, Entergy Texas filed an Agreed Motion for Interim Rates. The motion explained that the parties to this proceeding have agreed that Entergy Texas should be allowed to implement new rates reflecting an $18.5 million base rate increase, effective for usage on and after April 1, 2014, as well as recovery of charges for rough production cost equalization and rate case expenses. In March 2014, the State Office of Administrative Hearings, the body assigned to hear the case, approved the motion. In April 2014, Entergy Texas filed a unanimous stipulation in this case. Among other things, the stipulation provides for an $18.5 million base rate increase, recovery over three years of rough production cost equalization charges and rate case expenses (the same as the interim rates currently in effect), and states a 9.8% return on common equity. In addition, the stipulation finalizes the fuel and purchased power reconciliation covering the period July 2011 through March 2013, with the parties stipulating an immaterial fuel disallowance. No special circumstances recovery of purchased power costs was allowed. In April 2014, the State Office of Administrative Hearings remanded the case back to the PUCT for final processing. A memorandum filed in this matter by the PUCT’s ALJ indicates that the PUCT will consider this matter at its open meeting currently scheduled for May 16, 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, including the FERC’s October 2011 order and Entergy’s December 2011 compliance filing in response to that order. In February 2014 the FERC issued a rehearing order addressing its October 2011 order. The FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing on the issues of whether the bandwidth remedy should be made effective earlier than June 1, 2005, and whether refunds should be ordered for the 20-month refund effective period. The FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request on the issue of interest on the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period, requiring that interest be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date those bandwidth payments/receipts are made. Also in February 2014 the FERC issued an order rejecting the December 2011 compliance filing that calculated the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. The FERC order requires a new compliance filing that calculates the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period based on monthly data for the seven individual months and that includes interest pursuant to the February 2014 rehearing order. Entergy has sought rehearing of the February 2014 orders with respect to the FERC’s determinations regarding interest.

In April 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC a compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s February 2014 orders. The filing shows the following net payments and receipts, including interest, among the Utility operating companies:



	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$67
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana	($33)
Entergy Louisiana	$—
Entergy Mississippi	($11)
Entergy New Orleans	$2
Entergy Texas	($25)

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy New Orleans

As discussed in the Form 10-K, total restoration costs for the repair and replacement of Entergy New Orleans’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Isaac were $47.3 million. Entergy New Orleans withdrew $17.4 million from the storm reserve escrow account to partially offset these costs. In February 2014, Entergy New Orleans made a filing with the City Council seeking certification of the Hurricane Isaac costs.

Rate And Regulatory Matters

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.

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 LPSC

Retail Rates - Gas (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana)

In January 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2013. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 5.47%, which results in a $1.5 million rate increase. In April 2014 the LPSC Staff issued a report indicating "that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana has properly determined its earnings for the test year ended September 30, 2013." The $1.5 million rate increase was implemented effective with the first billing cycle of April 2014.

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 made in February 2013. In January 2014, the City Council Advisors filed direct testimony recommending a rate increase of $5.56 million over three years, including an 8.13% return on common equity. New rates are currently expected to become effective in second quarter 2014. The procedural schedule calls for the hearing on the merits to commence on May 20, 2014.

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 and (2) a rate case expense rider recovering the cost of the 2013 rate case and certain costs associated with previous rate cases. The rate case filing also included 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. In January 2014 the PUCT staff filed direct testimony recommending a retail rate reduction of $0.3 million and a 9.2% return on common equity. In March 2014, Entergy Texas filed an Agreed Motion for Interim Rates. The motion explained that the parties to this proceeding have agreed that Entergy Texas should be allowed to implement new rates reflecting an $18.5 million base rate increase, effective for usage on and after April 1, 2014, as well as recovery of charges for rough production cost equalization and rate case expenses. In March 2014, the State Office of Administrative Hearings, the body assigned to hear the case, approved the motion. In April 2014, Entergy Texas filed a unanimous stipulation in this case. Among other things, the stipulation provides for an $18.5 million base rate increase, recovery over three years of rough production cost equalization charges and rate case expenses (the same as the interim rates currently in effect), and states a 9.8% return on common equity. In addition, the stipulation finalizes the fuel and purchased power reconciliation covering the period July 2011 through March 2013, with the parties stipulating an immaterial fuel disallowance. No special circumstances recovery of purchased power costs was allowed. In April 2014, the State Office of Administrative Hearings remanded the case back to the PUCT for final processing. A memorandum filed in this matter by the PUCT’s ALJ indicates that the PUCT will consider this matter at its open meeting currently scheduled for May 16, 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, including the FERC’s October 2011 order and Entergy’s December 2011 compliance filing in response to that order. In February 2014 the FERC issued a rehearing order addressing its October 2011 order. The FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing on the issues of whether the bandwidth remedy should be made effective earlier than June 1, 2005, and whether refunds should be ordered for the 20-month refund effective period. The FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request on the issue of interest on the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period, requiring that interest be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date those bandwidth payments/receipts are made. Also in February 2014 the FERC issued an order rejecting the December 2011 compliance filing that calculated the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. The FERC order requires a new compliance filing that calculates the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period based on monthly data for the seven individual months and that includes interest pursuant to the February 2014 rehearing order. Entergy has sought rehearing of the February 2014 orders with respect to the FERC’s determinations regarding interest.

In April 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC a compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s February 2014 orders. The filing shows the following net payments and receipts, including interest, among the Utility operating companies:



	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$67
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana	($33)
Entergy Louisiana	$—
Entergy Mississippi	($11)
Entergy New Orleans	$2
Entergy Texas	($25)

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy New Orleans

As discussed in the Form 10-K, total restoration costs for the repair and replacement of Entergy New Orleans’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Isaac were $47.3 million. Entergy New Orleans withdrew $17.4 million from the storm reserve escrow account to partially offset these costs. In February 2014, Entergy New Orleans made a filing with the City Council seeking certification of the Hurricane Isaac costs.

Rate And Regulatory Matters

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.

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 LPSC

Retail Rates - Gas (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana)

In January 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2013. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 5.47%, which results in a $1.5 million rate increase. In April 2014 the LPSC Staff issued a report indicating "that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana has properly determined its earnings for the test year ended September 30, 2013." The $1.5 million rate increase was implemented effective with the first billing cycle of April 2014.

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 made in February 2013. In January 2014, the City Council Advisors filed direct testimony recommending a rate increase of $5.56 million over three years, including an 8.13% return on common equity. New rates are currently expected to become effective in second quarter 2014. The procedural schedule calls for the hearing on the merits to commence on May 20, 2014.

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 and (2) a rate case expense rider recovering the cost of the 2013 rate case and certain costs associated with previous rate cases. The rate case filing also included 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. In January 2014 the PUCT staff filed direct testimony recommending a retail rate reduction of $0.3 million and a 9.2% return on common equity. In March 2014, Entergy Texas filed an Agreed Motion for Interim Rates. The motion explained that the parties to this proceeding have agreed that Entergy Texas should be allowed to implement new rates reflecting an $18.5 million base rate increase, effective for usage on and after April 1, 2014, as well as recovery of charges for rough production cost equalization and rate case expenses. In March 2014, the State Office of Administrative Hearings, the body assigned to hear the case, approved the motion. In April 2014, Entergy Texas filed a unanimous stipulation in this case. Among other things, the stipulation provides for an $18.5 million base rate increase, recovery over three years of rough production cost equalization charges and rate case expenses (the same as the interim rates currently in effect), and states a 9.8% return on common equity. In addition, the stipulation finalizes the fuel and purchased power reconciliation covering the period July 2011 through March 2013, with the parties stipulating an immaterial fuel disallowance. No special circumstances recovery of purchased power costs was allowed. In April 2014, the State Office of Administrative Hearings remanded the case back to the PUCT for final processing. A memorandum filed in this matter by the PUCT’s ALJ indicates that the PUCT will consider this matter at its open meeting currently scheduled for May 16, 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, including the FERC’s October 2011 order and Entergy’s December 2011 compliance filing in response to that order. In February 2014 the FERC issued a rehearing order addressing its October 2011 order. The FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing on the issues of whether the bandwidth remedy should be made effective earlier than June 1, 2005, and whether refunds should be ordered for the 20-month refund effective period. The FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request on the issue of interest on the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period, requiring that interest be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date those bandwidth payments/receipts are made. Also in February 2014 the FERC issued an order rejecting the December 2011 compliance filing that calculated the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. The FERC order requires a new compliance filing that calculates the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period based on monthly data for the seven individual months and that includes interest pursuant to the February 2014 rehearing order. Entergy has sought rehearing of the February 2014 orders with respect to the FERC’s determinations regarding interest.

In April 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC a compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s February 2014 orders. The filing shows the following net payments and receipts, including interest, among the Utility operating companies:



	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$67
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana	($33)
Entergy Louisiana	$—
Entergy Mississippi	($11)
Entergy New Orleans	$2
Entergy Texas	($25)

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy New Orleans

As discussed in the Form 10-K, total restoration costs for the repair and replacement of Entergy New Orleans’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Isaac were $47.3 million. Entergy New Orleans withdrew $17.4 million from the storm reserve escrow account to partially offset these costs. In February 2014, Entergy New Orleans made a filing with the City Council seeking certification of the Hurricane Isaac costs.

Rate And Regulatory Matters

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.

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 LPSC

Retail Rates - Gas (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana)

In January 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2013. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 5.47%, which results in a $1.5 million rate increase. In April 2014 the LPSC Staff issued a report indicating "that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana has properly determined its earnings for the test year ended September 30, 2013." The $1.5 million rate increase was implemented effective with the first billing cycle of April 2014.

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 made in February 2013. In January 2014, the City Council Advisors filed direct testimony recommending a rate increase of $5.56 million over three years, including an 8.13% return on common equity. New rates are currently expected to become effective in second quarter 2014. The procedural schedule calls for the hearing on the merits to commence on May 20, 2014.

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 and (2) a rate case expense rider recovering the cost of the 2013 rate case and certain costs associated with previous rate cases. The rate case filing also included 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. In January 2014 the PUCT staff filed direct testimony recommending a retail rate reduction of $0.3 million and a 9.2% return on common equity. In March 2014, Entergy Texas filed an Agreed Motion for Interim Rates. The motion explained that the parties to this proceeding have agreed that Entergy Texas should be allowed to implement new rates reflecting an $18.5 million base rate increase, effective for usage on and after April 1, 2014, as well as recovery of charges for rough production cost equalization and rate case expenses. In March 2014, the State Office of Administrative Hearings, the body assigned to hear the case, approved the motion. In April 2014, Entergy Texas filed a unanimous stipulation in this case. Among other things, the stipulation provides for an $18.5 million base rate increase, recovery over three years of rough production cost equalization charges and rate case expenses (the same as the interim rates currently in effect), and states a 9.8% return on common equity. In addition, the stipulation finalizes the fuel and purchased power reconciliation covering the period July 2011 through March 2013, with the parties stipulating an immaterial fuel disallowance. No special circumstances recovery of purchased power costs was allowed. In April 2014, the State Office of Administrative Hearings remanded the case back to the PUCT for final processing. A memorandum filed in this matter by the PUCT’s ALJ indicates that the PUCT will consider this matter at its open meeting currently scheduled for May 16, 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, including the FERC’s October 2011 order and Entergy’s December 2011 compliance filing in response to that order. In February 2014 the FERC issued a rehearing order addressing its October 2011 order. The FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing on the issues of whether the bandwidth remedy should be made effective earlier than June 1, 2005, and whether refunds should be ordered for the 20-month refund effective period. The FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request on the issue of interest on the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period, requiring that interest be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date those bandwidth payments/receipts are made. Also in February 2014 the FERC issued an order rejecting the December 2011 compliance filing that calculated the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. The FERC order requires a new compliance filing that calculates the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period based on monthly data for the seven individual months and that includes interest pursuant to the February 2014 rehearing order. Entergy has sought rehearing of the February 2014 orders with respect to the FERC’s determinations regarding interest.

In April 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC a compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s February 2014 orders. The filing shows the following net payments and receipts, including interest, among the Utility operating companies:



	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$67
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana	($33)
Entergy Louisiana	$—
Entergy Mississippi	($11)
Entergy New Orleans	$2
Entergy Texas	($25)

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy New Orleans

As discussed in the Form 10-K, total restoration costs for the repair and replacement of Entergy New Orleans’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Isaac were $47.3 million. Entergy New Orleans withdrew $17.4 million from the storm reserve escrow account to partially offset these costs. In February 2014, Entergy New Orleans made a filing with the City Council seeking certification of the Hurricane Isaac costs.

Rate And Regulatory Matters

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.

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 LPSC

Retail Rates - Gas (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana)

In January 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2013. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 5.47%, which results in a $1.5 million rate increase. In April 2014 the LPSC Staff issued a report indicating "that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana has properly determined its earnings for the test year ended September 30, 2013." The $1.5 million rate increase was implemented effective with the first billing cycle of April 2014.

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 made in February 2013. In January 2014, the City Council Advisors filed direct testimony recommending a rate increase of $5.56 million over three years, including an 8.13% return on common equity. New rates are currently expected to become effective in second quarter 2014. The procedural schedule calls for the hearing on the merits to commence on May 20, 2014.

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 and (2) a rate case expense rider recovering the cost of the 2013 rate case and certain costs associated with previous rate cases. The rate case filing also included 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. In January 2014 the PUCT staff filed direct testimony recommending a retail rate reduction of $0.3 million and a 9.2% return on common equity. In March 2014, Entergy Texas filed an Agreed Motion for Interim Rates. The motion explained that the parties to this proceeding have agreed that Entergy Texas should be allowed to implement new rates reflecting an $18.5 million base rate increase, effective for usage on and after April 1, 2014, as well as recovery of charges for rough production cost equalization and rate case expenses. In March 2014, the State Office of Administrative Hearings, the body assigned to hear the case, approved the motion. In April 2014, Entergy Texas filed a unanimous stipulation in this case. Among other things, the stipulation provides for an $18.5 million base rate increase, recovery over three years of rough production cost equalization charges and rate case expenses (the same as the interim rates currently in effect), and states a 9.8% return on common equity. In addition, the stipulation finalizes the fuel and purchased power reconciliation covering the period July 2011 through March 2013, with the parties stipulating an immaterial fuel disallowance. No special circumstances recovery of purchased power costs was allowed. In April 2014, the State Office of Administrative Hearings remanded the case back to the PUCT for final processing. A memorandum filed in this matter by the PUCT’s ALJ indicates that the PUCT will consider this matter at its open meeting currently scheduled for May 16, 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, including the FERC’s October 2011 order and Entergy’s December 2011 compliance filing in response to that order. In February 2014 the FERC issued a rehearing order addressing its October 2011 order. The FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing on the issues of whether the bandwidth remedy should be made effective earlier than June 1, 2005, and whether refunds should be ordered for the 20-month refund effective period. The FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request on the issue of interest on the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period, requiring that interest be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date those bandwidth payments/receipts are made. Also in February 2014 the FERC issued an order rejecting the December 2011 compliance filing that calculated the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. The FERC order requires a new compliance filing that calculates the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period based on monthly data for the seven individual months and that includes interest pursuant to the February 2014 rehearing order. Entergy has sought rehearing of the February 2014 orders with respect to the FERC’s determinations regarding interest.

In April 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC a compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s February 2014 orders. The filing shows the following net payments and receipts, including interest, among the Utility operating companies:



	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$67
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana	($33)
Entergy Louisiana	$—
Entergy Mississippi	($11)
Entergy New Orleans	$2
Entergy Texas	($25)

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy New Orleans

As discussed in the Form 10-K, total restoration costs for the repair and replacement of Entergy New Orleans’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Isaac were $47.3 million. Entergy New Orleans withdrew $17.4 million from the storm reserve escrow account to partially offset these costs. In February 2014, Entergy New Orleans made a filing with the City Council seeking certification of the Hurricane Isaac costs.

Rate And Regulatory Matters

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.

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 LPSC

Retail Rates - Gas (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana)

In January 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2013. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 5.47%, which results in a $1.5 million rate increase. In April 2014 the LPSC Staff issued a report indicating "that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana has properly determined its earnings for the test year ended September 30, 2013." The $1.5 million rate increase was implemented effective with the first billing cycle of April 2014.

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 made in February 2013. In January 2014, the City Council Advisors filed direct testimony recommending a rate increase of $5.56 million over three years, including an 8.13% return on common equity. New rates are currently expected to become effective in second quarter 2014. The procedural schedule calls for the hearing on the merits to commence on May 20, 2014.

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 and (2) a rate case expense rider recovering the cost of the 2013 rate case and certain costs associated with previous rate cases. The rate case filing also included 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. In January 2014 the PUCT staff filed direct testimony recommending a retail rate reduction of $0.3 million and a 9.2% return on common equity. In March 2014, Entergy Texas filed an Agreed Motion for Interim Rates. The motion explained that the parties to this proceeding have agreed that Entergy Texas should be allowed to implement new rates reflecting an $18.5 million base rate increase, effective for usage on and after April 1, 2014, as well as recovery of charges for rough production cost equalization and rate case expenses. In March 2014, the State Office of Administrative Hearings, the body assigned to hear the case, approved the motion. In April 2014, Entergy Texas filed a unanimous stipulation in this case. Among other things, the stipulation provides for an $18.5 million base rate increase, recovery over three years of rough production cost equalization charges and rate case expenses (the same as the interim rates currently in effect), and states a 9.8% return on common equity. In addition, the stipulation finalizes the fuel and purchased power reconciliation covering the period July 2011 through March 2013, with the parties stipulating an immaterial fuel disallowance. No special circumstances recovery of purchased power costs was allowed. In April 2014, the State Office of Administrative Hearings remanded the case back to the PUCT for final processing. A memorandum filed in this matter by the PUCT’s ALJ indicates that the PUCT will consider this matter at its open meeting currently scheduled for May 16, 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, including the FERC’s October 2011 order and Entergy’s December 2011 compliance filing in response to that order. In February 2014 the FERC issued a rehearing order addressing its October 2011 order. The FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing on the issues of whether the bandwidth remedy should be made effective earlier than June 1, 2005, and whether refunds should be ordered for the 20-month refund effective period. The FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request on the issue of interest on the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period, requiring that interest be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date those bandwidth payments/receipts are made. Also in February 2014 the FERC issued an order rejecting the December 2011 compliance filing that calculated the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. The FERC order requires a new compliance filing that calculates the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period based on monthly data for the seven individual months and that includes interest pursuant to the February 2014 rehearing order. Entergy has sought rehearing of the February 2014 orders with respect to the FERC’s determinations regarding interest.

In April 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC a compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s February 2014 orders. The filing shows the following net payments and receipts, including interest, among the Utility operating companies:



	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$67
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana	($33)
Entergy Louisiana	$—
Entergy Mississippi	($11)
Entergy New Orleans	$2
Entergy Texas	($25)

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy New Orleans

As discussed in the Form 10-K, total restoration costs for the repair and replacement of Entergy New Orleans’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Isaac were $47.3 million. Entergy New Orleans withdrew $17.4 million from the storm reserve escrow account to partially offset these costs. In February 2014, Entergy New Orleans made a filing with the City Council seeking certification of the Hurricane Isaac costs.

Rate And Regulatory Matters

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.

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 LPSC

Retail Rates - Gas (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana)

In January 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2013. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 5.47%, which results in a $1.5 million rate increase. In April 2014 the LPSC Staff issued a report indicating "that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana has properly determined its earnings for the test year ended September 30, 2013." The $1.5 million rate increase was implemented effective with the first billing cycle of April 2014.

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 made in February 2013. In January 2014, the City Council Advisors filed direct testimony recommending a rate increase of $5.56 million over three years, including an 8.13% return on common equity. New rates are currently expected to become effective in second quarter 2014. The procedural schedule calls for the hearing on the merits to commence on May 20, 2014.

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 and (2) a rate case expense rider recovering the cost of the 2013 rate case and certain costs associated with previous rate cases. The rate case filing also included 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. In January 2014 the PUCT staff filed direct testimony recommending a retail rate reduction of $0.3 million and a 9.2% return on common equity. In March 2014, Entergy Texas filed an Agreed Motion for Interim Rates. The motion explained that the parties to this proceeding have agreed that Entergy Texas should be allowed to implement new rates reflecting an $18.5 million base rate increase, effective for usage on and after April 1, 2014, as well as recovery of charges for rough production cost equalization and rate case expenses. In March 2014, the State Office of Administrative Hearings, the body assigned to hear the case, approved the motion. In April 2014, Entergy Texas filed a unanimous stipulation in this case. Among other things, the stipulation provides for an $18.5 million base rate increase, recovery over three years of rough production cost equalization charges and rate case expenses (the same as the interim rates currently in effect), and states a 9.8% return on common equity. In addition, the stipulation finalizes the fuel and purchased power reconciliation covering the period July 2011 through March 2013, with the parties stipulating an immaterial fuel disallowance. No special circumstances recovery of purchased power costs was allowed. In April 2014, the State Office of Administrative Hearings remanded the case back to the PUCT for final processing. A memorandum filed in this matter by the PUCT’s ALJ indicates that the PUCT will consider this matter at its open meeting currently scheduled for May 16, 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, including the FERC’s October 2011 order and Entergy’s December 2011 compliance filing in response to that order. In February 2014 the FERC issued a rehearing order addressing its October 2011 order. The FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing on the issues of whether the bandwidth remedy should be made effective earlier than June 1, 2005, and whether refunds should be ordered for the 20-month refund effective period. The FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request on the issue of interest on the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period, requiring that interest be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date those bandwidth payments/receipts are made. Also in February 2014 the FERC issued an order rejecting the December 2011 compliance filing that calculated the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. The FERC order requires a new compliance filing that calculates the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period based on monthly data for the seven individual months and that includes interest pursuant to the February 2014 rehearing order. Entergy has sought rehearing of the February 2014 orders with respect to the FERC’s determinations regarding interest.

In April 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC a compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s February 2014 orders. The filing shows the following net payments and receipts, including interest, among the Utility operating companies:



	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$67
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana	($33)
Entergy Louisiana	$—
Entergy Mississippi	($11)
Entergy New Orleans	$2
Entergy Texas	($25)

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy New Orleans

As discussed in the Form 10-K, total restoration costs for the repair and replacement of Entergy New Orleans’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Isaac were $47.3 million. Entergy New Orleans withdrew $17.4 million from the storm reserve escrow account to partially offset these costs. In February 2014, Entergy New Orleans made a filing with the City Council seeking certification of the Hurricane Isaac costs.