Rate And Regulatory Matters	3 Months Ended
Rate And Regulatory Matters	Mar. 31, 2015
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 and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Mississippi Mississippi Attorney General Complaint The Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. Entergy believes the complaint is unfounded. In December 2008 the defendant Entergy companies removed the Attorney General’s lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. The Mississippi attorney general moved to remand the matter to state court. In August 2012 the District Court issued an opinion denying the Attorney General’s motion for remand, finding that the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The defendant Entergy companies answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim for relief based upon the Mississippi Public Utilities Act and the Federal Power Act. In May 2009 the defendant Entergy companies filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting grounds of federal preemption, the exclusive jurisdiction of the MPSC, and factual errors in the Attorney General’s complaint. In September 2012 the District Court heard oral argument on Entergy’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In January 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in which it held that cases brought by attorneys general as the sole plaintiff to enforce state laws were not considered “mass actions” under the Class Action Fairness Act, so as to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. One day later the Attorney General renewed his motion to remand the Entergy case back to state court, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. The defendant Entergy companies responded to that motion reiterating the additional grounds asserted for federal question jurisdiction, and the District Court held oral argument on the renewed motion to remand in February 2014. In April 2015 the District Court entered an order denying the renewed motion to remand, holding that the District Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court has not yet ruled on the defendant Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, which if granted would dismiss the case. Entergy New Orleans In February 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to enter into a power purchase agreement, subject to certain conditions, with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana to purchase on a life-of-unit basis 20% of the capacity and related energy of the two power blocks of the Union Power Station that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana is seeking to purchase. In the application, Entergy New Orleans also seeks authorization from the City Council for full and timely cost recovery in rates for all costs associated with the power purchase agreement. In April 2015 the City Council approved a procedural schedule for this proceeding that would provide for a City Council decision in July 2015. 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 In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notifies the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requests a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requests a 10.2% return on common equity. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Gas (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2014. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 7.20%, which results in a $706 thousand rate increase. In April 2015 the LPSC issued findings recommending two adjustments to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s as-filed results, and an additional recommendation that does not affect current year results. The LPSC staff’s recommended adjustments increase the earned return on equity for the test year to 7.24%. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana accepted the LPSC staff’s recommendations and a revenue increase of $688 thousand will be required as opposed to the $706 thousand requested by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The resulting change will be implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC in September 2014 seeking authorization to undertake the transactions that would result in the combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana into a single public utility. In the proceedings with the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana estimate that the business combination could produce up to $128 million in customer benefits including proposed guaranteed savings of $97 million in the first ten years. In April 2015 the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony in the LPSC business combination proceeding. The testimony recommends an extensive set of conditions that would be required in order to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination is in the public interest. The LPSC staff’s primary concern appears to be potential shifting in fuel costs between legacy Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. In May 2015, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony. The hearing in the LPSC proceeding is scheduled to take place in June 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana have requested that the LPSC issue its decision regarding the business combination in August 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization for the business combination and Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization of the Algiers asset transfer. In April 2015 the FERC issued orders approving certain of those business combination and the Algiers asset transfer applications. Other FERC applications related to the business combination remain pending. Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans) As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2014 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a transaction that would result in the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that currently serve Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In March 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the Algiers asset transfer be approved subject to certain conditions that Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans believe they will be able to satisfy. If the necessary approvals are obtained from the City Council, Entergy Louisiana expects to transfer the Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans in the second half of 2015. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers asset transfer. 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 that concluded the FERC did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-months period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003. Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, the FERC concluded that the refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in that proceeding. In March 2015, in light of the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish briefing schedule on refund issues and initial brief addressing refund issues. The initial brief argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in this proceeding. 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. In March 2015 the D.C. Circuit issued an unpublished order dismissing in part and denying in part the petition for review by the LPSC and denying the petition for review by Entergy. 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 April 2015, after issuance of the March 2015 unpublished opinion of the D.C. Circuit related to the 2007 rate proceeding, as discussed above, Entergy filed an unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of the petition for review of the FERC’s interest determination. In May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the Fifth Circuit’s 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 May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the Fifth Circuit’s decision. 2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. Interruptible Load Proceeding As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking review of FERC prior orders in the interruptible load proceeding that concluded that the FERC would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in this proceeding. In December 2014 the D.C. Circuit issued an order on the LPSC’s appeal and remanded the case back to the FERC. The D.C. Circuit rejected the LPSC’s argument that there is a presumption in favor of refunds, but it held that the FERC had not adequately explained its decision to deny refunds and directed the FERC “to consider the relevant factors and weigh them against one another.” In March 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish a briefing schedule on remand and an initial brief on remand to address the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit. The initial brief on remand argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in the interruptible load proceeding. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators Entergy New Orleans As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the securitization of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. In February 2015 the City Council approved a resolution establishing an expedited procedural schedule that provided for a hearing on the securitization application in late-April 2015, with a decision to be rendered no later than May 2015. In April 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the proposed securitization be approved subject to certain limited modifications, and Entergy New Orleans filed rebuttal testimony later in April 2015. Also in April 2015, the parties’ joint motion to continue the hearing to facilitate settlement negotiations was granted. Texas Power Price Lawsuit See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this lawsuit. In May 2015 the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing, withdrew its prior opinion, and set the case for resubmission in June 2015, without further argument.
Entergy Arkansas [Member]
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 and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Mississippi Mississippi Attorney General Complaint The Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. Entergy believes the complaint is unfounded. In December 2008 the defendant Entergy companies removed the Attorney General’s lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. The Mississippi attorney general moved to remand the matter to state court. In August 2012 the District Court issued an opinion denying the Attorney General’s motion for remand, finding that the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The defendant Entergy companies answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim for relief based upon the Mississippi Public Utilities Act and the Federal Power Act. In May 2009 the defendant Entergy companies filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting grounds of federal preemption, the exclusive jurisdiction of the MPSC, and factual errors in the Attorney General’s complaint. In September 2012 the District Court heard oral argument on Entergy’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In January 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in which it held that cases brought by attorneys general as the sole plaintiff to enforce state laws were not considered “mass actions” under the Class Action Fairness Act, so as to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. One day later the Attorney General renewed his motion to remand the Entergy case back to state court, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. The defendant Entergy companies responded to that motion reiterating the additional grounds asserted for federal question jurisdiction, and the District Court held oral argument on the renewed motion to remand in February 2014. In April 2015 the District Court entered an order denying the renewed motion to remand, holding that the District Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court has not yet ruled on the defendant Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, which if granted would dismiss the case. Entergy New Orleans In February 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to enter into a power purchase agreement, subject to certain conditions, with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana to purchase on a life-of-unit basis 20% of the capacity and related energy of the two power blocks of the Union Power Station that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana is seeking to purchase. In the application, Entergy New Orleans also seeks authorization from the City Council for full and timely cost recovery in rates for all costs associated with the power purchase agreement. In April 2015 the City Council approved a procedural schedule for this proceeding that would provide for a City Council decision in July 2015. 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 In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notifies the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requests a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requests a 10.2% return on common equity. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Gas (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2014. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 7.20%, which results in a $706 thousand rate increase. In April 2015 the LPSC issued findings recommending two adjustments to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s as-filed results, and an additional recommendation that does not affect current year results. The LPSC staff’s recommended adjustments increase the earned return on equity for the test year to 7.24%. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana accepted the LPSC staff’s recommendations and a revenue increase of $688 thousand will be required as opposed to the $706 thousand requested by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The resulting change will be implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC in September 2014 seeking authorization to undertake the transactions that would result in the combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana into a single public utility. In the proceedings with the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana estimate that the business combination could produce up to $128 million in customer benefits including proposed guaranteed savings of $97 million in the first ten years. In April 2015 the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony in the LPSC business combination proceeding. The testimony recommends an extensive set of conditions that would be required in order to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination is in the public interest. The LPSC staff’s primary concern appears to be potential shifting in fuel costs between legacy Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. In May 2015, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony. The hearing in the LPSC proceeding is scheduled to take place in June 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana have requested that the LPSC issue its decision regarding the business combination in August 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization for the business combination and Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization of the Algiers asset transfer. In April 2015 the FERC issued orders approving certain of those business combination and the Algiers asset transfer applications. Other FERC applications related to the business combination remain pending. Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans) As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2014 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a transaction that would result in the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that currently serve Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In March 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the Algiers asset transfer be approved subject to certain conditions that Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans believe they will be able to satisfy. If the necessary approvals are obtained from the City Council, Entergy Louisiana expects to transfer the Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans in the second half of 2015. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers asset transfer. 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 that concluded the FERC did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-months period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003. Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, the FERC concluded that the refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in that proceeding. In March 2015, in light of the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish briefing schedule on refund issues and initial brief addressing refund issues. The initial brief argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in this proceeding. 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. In March 2015 the D.C. Circuit issued an unpublished order dismissing in part and denying in part the petition for review by the LPSC and denying the petition for review by Entergy. 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 April 2015, after issuance of the March 2015 unpublished opinion of the D.C. Circuit related to the 2007 rate proceeding, as discussed above, Entergy filed an unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of the petition for review of the FERC’s interest determination. In May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the Fifth Circuit’s 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 May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the Fifth Circuit’s decision. 2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. Interruptible Load Proceeding As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking review of FERC prior orders in the interruptible load proceeding that concluded that the FERC would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in this proceeding. In December 2014 the D.C. Circuit issued an order on the LPSC’s appeal and remanded the case back to the FERC. The D.C. Circuit rejected the LPSC’s argument that there is a presumption in favor of refunds, but it held that the FERC had not adequately explained its decision to deny refunds and directed the FERC “to consider the relevant factors and weigh them against one another.” In March 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish a briefing schedule on remand and an initial brief on remand to address the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit. The initial brief on remand argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in the interruptible load proceeding. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators Entergy New Orleans As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the securitization of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. In February 2015 the City Council approved a resolution establishing an expedited procedural schedule that provided for a hearing on the securitization application in late-April 2015, with a decision to be rendered no later than May 2015. In April 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the proposed securitization be approved subject to certain limited modifications, and Entergy New Orleans filed rebuttal testimony later in April 2015. Also in April 2015, the parties’ joint motion to continue the hearing to facilitate settlement negotiations was granted. Texas Power Price Lawsuit See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this lawsuit. In May 2015 the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing, withdrew its prior opinion, and set the case for resubmission in June 2015, without further argument.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana [Member]
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 and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Mississippi Mississippi Attorney General Complaint The Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. Entergy believes the complaint is unfounded. In December 2008 the defendant Entergy companies removed the Attorney General’s lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. The Mississippi attorney general moved to remand the matter to state court. In August 2012 the District Court issued an opinion denying the Attorney General’s motion for remand, finding that the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The defendant Entergy companies answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim for relief based upon the Mississippi Public Utilities Act and the Federal Power Act. In May 2009 the defendant Entergy companies filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting grounds of federal preemption, the exclusive jurisdiction of the MPSC, and factual errors in the Attorney General’s complaint. In September 2012 the District Court heard oral argument on Entergy’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In January 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in which it held that cases brought by attorneys general as the sole plaintiff to enforce state laws were not considered “mass actions” under the Class Action Fairness Act, so as to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. One day later the Attorney General renewed his motion to remand the Entergy case back to state court, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. The defendant Entergy companies responded to that motion reiterating the additional grounds asserted for federal question jurisdiction, and the District Court held oral argument on the renewed motion to remand in February 2014. In April 2015 the District Court entered an order denying the renewed motion to remand, holding that the District Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court has not yet ruled on the defendant Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, which if granted would dismiss the case. Entergy New Orleans In February 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to enter into a power purchase agreement, subject to certain conditions, with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana to purchase on a life-of-unit basis 20% of the capacity and related energy of the two power blocks of the Union Power Station that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana is seeking to purchase. In the application, Entergy New Orleans also seeks authorization from the City Council for full and timely cost recovery in rates for all costs associated with the power purchase agreement. In April 2015 the City Council approved a procedural schedule for this proceeding that would provide for a City Council decision in July 2015. 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 In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notifies the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requests a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requests a 10.2% return on common equity. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Gas (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2014. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 7.20%, which results in a $706 thousand rate increase. In April 2015 the LPSC issued findings recommending two adjustments to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s as-filed results, and an additional recommendation that does not affect current year results. The LPSC staff’s recommended adjustments increase the earned return on equity for the test year to 7.24%. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana accepted the LPSC staff’s recommendations and a revenue increase of $688 thousand will be required as opposed to the $706 thousand requested by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The resulting change will be implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC in September 2014 seeking authorization to undertake the transactions that would result in the combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana into a single public utility. In the proceedings with the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana estimate that the business combination could produce up to $128 million in customer benefits including proposed guaranteed savings of $97 million in the first ten years. In April 2015 the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony in the LPSC business combination proceeding. The testimony recommends an extensive set of conditions that would be required in order to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination is in the public interest. The LPSC staff’s primary concern appears to be potential shifting in fuel costs between legacy Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. In May 2015, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony. The hearing in the LPSC proceeding is scheduled to take place in June 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana have requested that the LPSC issue its decision regarding the business combination in August 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization for the business combination and Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization of the Algiers asset transfer. In April 2015 the FERC issued orders approving certain of those business combination and the Algiers asset transfer applications. Other FERC applications related to the business combination remain pending. Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans) As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2014 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a transaction that would result in the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that currently serve Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In March 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the Algiers asset transfer be approved subject to certain conditions that Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans believe they will be able to satisfy. If the necessary approvals are obtained from the City Council, Entergy Louisiana expects to transfer the Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans in the second half of 2015. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers asset transfer. 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 that concluded the FERC did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-months period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003. Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, the FERC concluded that the refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in that proceeding. In March 2015, in light of the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish briefing schedule on refund issues and initial brief addressing refund issues. The initial brief argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in this proceeding. 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. In March 2015 the D.C. Circuit issued an unpublished order dismissing in part and denying in part the petition for review by the LPSC and denying the petition for review by Entergy. 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 April 2015, after issuance of the March 2015 unpublished opinion of the D.C. Circuit related to the 2007 rate proceeding, as discussed above, Entergy filed an unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of the petition for review of the FERC’s interest determination. In May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the Fifth Circuit’s 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 May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the Fifth Circuit’s decision. 2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. Interruptible Load Proceeding As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking review of FERC prior orders in the interruptible load proceeding that concluded that the FERC would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in this proceeding. In December 2014 the D.C. Circuit issued an order on the LPSC’s appeal and remanded the case back to the FERC. The D.C. Circuit rejected the LPSC’s argument that there is a presumption in favor of refunds, but it held that the FERC had not adequately explained its decision to deny refunds and directed the FERC “to consider the relevant factors and weigh them against one another.” In March 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish a briefing schedule on remand and an initial brief on remand to address the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit. The initial brief on remand argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in the interruptible load proceeding. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators Entergy New Orleans As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the securitization of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. In February 2015 the City Council approved a resolution establishing an expedited procedural schedule that provided for a hearing on the securitization application in late-April 2015, with a decision to be rendered no later than May 2015. In April 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the proposed securitization be approved subject to certain limited modifications, and Entergy New Orleans filed rebuttal testimony later in April 2015. Also in April 2015, the parties’ joint motion to continue the hearing to facilitate settlement negotiations was granted. Texas Power Price Lawsuit See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this lawsuit. In May 2015 the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing, withdrew its prior opinion, and set the case for resubmission in June 2015, without further argument.
Entergy Louisiana [Member]
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 and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Mississippi Mississippi Attorney General Complaint The Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. Entergy believes the complaint is unfounded. In December 2008 the defendant Entergy companies removed the Attorney General’s lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. The Mississippi attorney general moved to remand the matter to state court. In August 2012 the District Court issued an opinion denying the Attorney General’s motion for remand, finding that the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The defendant Entergy companies answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim for relief based upon the Mississippi Public Utilities Act and the Federal Power Act. In May 2009 the defendant Entergy companies filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting grounds of federal preemption, the exclusive jurisdiction of the MPSC, and factual errors in the Attorney General’s complaint. In September 2012 the District Court heard oral argument on Entergy’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In January 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in which it held that cases brought by attorneys general as the sole plaintiff to enforce state laws were not considered “mass actions” under the Class Action Fairness Act, so as to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. One day later the Attorney General renewed his motion to remand the Entergy case back to state court, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. The defendant Entergy companies responded to that motion reiterating the additional grounds asserted for federal question jurisdiction, and the District Court held oral argument on the renewed motion to remand in February 2014. In April 2015 the District Court entered an order denying the renewed motion to remand, holding that the District Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court has not yet ruled on the defendant Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, which if granted would dismiss the case. Entergy New Orleans In February 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to enter into a power purchase agreement, subject to certain conditions, with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana to purchase on a life-of-unit basis 20% of the capacity and related energy of the two power blocks of the Union Power Station that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana is seeking to purchase. In the application, Entergy New Orleans also seeks authorization from the City Council for full and timely cost recovery in rates for all costs associated with the power purchase agreement. In April 2015 the City Council approved a procedural schedule for this proceeding that would provide for a City Council decision in July 2015. 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 In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notifies the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requests a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requests a 10.2% return on common equity. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Gas (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2014. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 7.20%, which results in a $706 thousand rate increase. In April 2015 the LPSC issued findings recommending two adjustments to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s as-filed results, and an additional recommendation that does not affect current year results. The LPSC staff’s recommended adjustments increase the earned return on equity for the test year to 7.24%. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana accepted the LPSC staff’s recommendations and a revenue increase of $688 thousand will be required as opposed to the $706 thousand requested by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The resulting change will be implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC in September 2014 seeking authorization to undertake the transactions that would result in the combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana into a single public utility. In the proceedings with the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana estimate that the business combination could produce up to $128 million in customer benefits including proposed guaranteed savings of $97 million in the first ten years. In April 2015 the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony in the LPSC business combination proceeding. The testimony recommends an extensive set of conditions that would be required in order to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination is in the public interest. The LPSC staff’s primary concern appears to be potential shifting in fuel costs between legacy Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. In May 2015, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony. The hearing in the LPSC proceeding is scheduled to take place in June 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana have requested that the LPSC issue its decision regarding the business combination in August 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization for the business combination and Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization of the Algiers asset transfer. In April 2015 the FERC issued orders approving certain of those business combination and the Algiers asset transfer applications. Other FERC applications related to the business combination remain pending. Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans) As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2014 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a transaction that would result in the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that currently serve Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In March 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the Algiers asset transfer be approved subject to certain conditions that Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans believe they will be able to satisfy. If the necessary approvals are obtained from the City Council, Entergy Louisiana expects to transfer the Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans in the second half of 2015. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers asset transfer. 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 that concluded the FERC did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-months period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003. Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, the FERC concluded that the refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in that proceeding. In March 2015, in light of the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish briefing schedule on refund issues and initial brief addressing refund issues. The initial brief argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in this proceeding. 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. In March 2015 the D.C. Circuit issued an unpublished order dismissing in part and denying in part the petition for review by the LPSC and denying the petition for review by Entergy. 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 April 2015, after issuance of the March 2015 unpublished opinion of the D.C. Circuit related to the 2007 rate proceeding, as discussed above, Entergy filed an unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of the petition for review of the FERC’s interest determination. In May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the Fifth Circuit’s 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 May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the Fifth Circuit’s decision. 2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. Interruptible Load Proceeding As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking review of FERC prior orders in the interruptible load proceeding that concluded that the FERC would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in this proceeding. In December 2014 the D.C. Circuit issued an order on the LPSC’s appeal and remanded the case back to the FERC. The D.C. Circuit rejected the LPSC’s argument that there is a presumption in favor of refunds, but it held that the FERC had not adequately explained its decision to deny refunds and directed the FERC “to consider the relevant factors and weigh them against one another.” In March 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish a briefing schedule on remand and an initial brief on remand to address the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit. The initial brief on remand argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in the interruptible load proceeding. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators Entergy New Orleans As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the securitization of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. In February 2015 the City Council approved a resolution establishing an expedited procedural schedule that provided for a hearing on the securitization application in late-April 2015, with a decision to be rendered no later than May 2015. In April 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the proposed securitization be approved subject to certain limited modifications, and Entergy New Orleans filed rebuttal testimony later in April 2015. Also in April 2015, the parties’ joint motion to continue the hearing to facilitate settlement negotiations was granted. Texas Power Price Lawsuit See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this lawsuit. In May 2015 the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing, withdrew its prior opinion, and set the case for resubmission in June 2015, without further argument.
Entergy Mississippi [Member]
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 and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Mississippi Mississippi Attorney General Complaint The Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. Entergy believes the complaint is unfounded. In December 2008 the defendant Entergy companies removed the Attorney General’s lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. The Mississippi attorney general moved to remand the matter to state court. In August 2012 the District Court issued an opinion denying the Attorney General’s motion for remand, finding that the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The defendant Entergy companies answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim for relief based upon the Mississippi Public Utilities Act and the Federal Power Act. In May 2009 the defendant Entergy companies filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting grounds of federal preemption, the exclusive jurisdiction of the MPSC, and factual errors in the Attorney General’s complaint. In September 2012 the District Court heard oral argument on Entergy’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In January 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in which it held that cases brought by attorneys general as the sole plaintiff to enforce state laws were not considered “mass actions” under the Class Action Fairness Act, so as to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. One day later the Attorney General renewed his motion to remand the Entergy case back to state court, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. The defendant Entergy companies responded to that motion reiterating the additional grounds asserted for federal question jurisdiction, and the District Court held oral argument on the renewed motion to remand in February 2014. In April 2015 the District Court entered an order denying the renewed motion to remand, holding that the District Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court has not yet ruled on the defendant Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, which if granted would dismiss the case. Entergy New Orleans In February 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to enter into a power purchase agreement, subject to certain conditions, with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana to purchase on a life-of-unit basis 20% of the capacity and related energy of the two power blocks of the Union Power Station that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana is seeking to purchase. In the application, Entergy New Orleans also seeks authorization from the City Council for full and timely cost recovery in rates for all costs associated with the power purchase agreement. In April 2015 the City Council approved a procedural schedule for this proceeding that would provide for a City Council decision in July 2015. 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 In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notifies the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requests a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requests a 10.2% return on common equity. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Gas (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2014. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 7.20%, which results in a $706 thousand rate increase. In April 2015 the LPSC issued findings recommending two adjustments to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s as-filed results, and an additional recommendation that does not affect current year results. The LPSC staff’s recommended adjustments increase the earned return on equity for the test year to 7.24%. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana accepted the LPSC staff’s recommendations and a revenue increase of $688 thousand will be required as opposed to the $706 thousand requested by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The resulting change will be implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC in September 2014 seeking authorization to undertake the transactions that would result in the combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana into a single public utility. In the proceedings with the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana estimate that the business combination could produce up to $128 million in customer benefits including proposed guaranteed savings of $97 million in the first ten years. In April 2015 the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony in the LPSC business combination proceeding. The testimony recommends an extensive set of conditions that would be required in order to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination is in the public interest. The LPSC staff’s primary concern appears to be potential shifting in fuel costs between legacy Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. In May 2015, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony. The hearing in the LPSC proceeding is scheduled to take place in June 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana have requested that the LPSC issue its decision regarding the business combination in August 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization for the business combination and Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization of the Algiers asset transfer. In April 2015 the FERC issued orders approving certain of those business combination and the Algiers asset transfer applications. Other FERC applications related to the business combination remain pending. Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans) As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2014 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a transaction that would result in the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that currently serve Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In March 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the Algiers asset transfer be approved subject to certain conditions that Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans believe they will be able to satisfy. If the necessary approvals are obtained from the City Council, Entergy Louisiana expects to transfer the Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans in the second half of 2015. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers asset transfer. 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 that concluded the FERC did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-months period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003. Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, the FERC concluded that the refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in that proceeding. In March 2015, in light of the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish briefing schedule on refund issues and initial brief addressing refund issues. The initial brief argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in this proceeding. 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. In March 2015 the D.C. Circuit issued an unpublished order dismissing in part and denying in part the petition for review by the LPSC and denying the petition for review by Entergy. 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 April 2015, after issuance of the March 2015 unpublished opinion of the D.C. Circuit related to the 2007 rate proceeding, as discussed above, Entergy filed an unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of the petition for review of the FERC’s interest determination. In May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the Fifth Circuit’s 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 May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the Fifth Circuit’s decision. 2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. Interruptible Load Proceeding As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking review of FERC prior orders in the interruptible load proceeding that concluded that the FERC would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in this proceeding. In December 2014 the D.C. Circuit issued an order on the LPSC’s appeal and remanded the case back to the FERC. The D.C. Circuit rejected the LPSC’s argument that there is a presumption in favor of refunds, but it held that the FERC had not adequately explained its decision to deny refunds and directed the FERC “to consider the relevant factors and weigh them against one another.” In March 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish a briefing schedule on remand and an initial brief on remand to address the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit. The initial brief on remand argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in the interruptible load proceeding. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators Entergy New Orleans As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the securitization of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. In February 2015 the City Council approved a resolution establishing an expedited procedural schedule that provided for a hearing on the securitization application in late-April 2015, with a decision to be rendered no later than May 2015. In April 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the proposed securitization be approved subject to certain limited modifications, and Entergy New Orleans filed rebuttal testimony later in April 2015. Also in April 2015, the parties’ joint motion to continue the hearing to facilitate settlement negotiations was granted. Texas Power Price Lawsuit See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this lawsuit. In May 2015 the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing, withdrew its prior opinion, and set the case for resubmission in June 2015, without further argument.
Entergy New Orleans [Member]
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 and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Mississippi Mississippi Attorney General Complaint The Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. Entergy believes the complaint is unfounded. In December 2008 the defendant Entergy companies removed the Attorney General’s lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. The Mississippi attorney general moved to remand the matter to state court. In August 2012 the District Court issued an opinion denying the Attorney General’s motion for remand, finding that the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The defendant Entergy companies answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim for relief based upon the Mississippi Public Utilities Act and the Federal Power Act. In May 2009 the defendant Entergy companies filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting grounds of federal preemption, the exclusive jurisdiction of the MPSC, and factual errors in the Attorney General’s complaint. In September 2012 the District Court heard oral argument on Entergy’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In January 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in which it held that cases brought by attorneys general as the sole plaintiff to enforce state laws were not considered “mass actions” under the Class Action Fairness Act, so as to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. One day later the Attorney General renewed his motion to remand the Entergy case back to state court, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. The defendant Entergy companies responded to that motion reiterating the additional grounds asserted for federal question jurisdiction, and the District Court held oral argument on the renewed motion to remand in February 2014. In April 2015 the District Court entered an order denying the renewed motion to remand, holding that the District Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court has not yet ruled on the defendant Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, which if granted would dismiss the case. Entergy New Orleans In February 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to enter into a power purchase agreement, subject to certain conditions, with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana to purchase on a life-of-unit basis 20% of the capacity and related energy of the two power blocks of the Union Power Station that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana is seeking to purchase. In the application, Entergy New Orleans also seeks authorization from the City Council for full and timely cost recovery in rates for all costs associated with the power purchase agreement. In April 2015 the City Council approved a procedural schedule for this proceeding that would provide for a City Council decision in July 2015. 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 In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notifies the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requests a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requests a 10.2% return on common equity. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Gas (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2014. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 7.20%, which results in a $706 thousand rate increase. In April 2015 the LPSC issued findings recommending two adjustments to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s as-filed results, and an additional recommendation that does not affect current year results. The LPSC staff’s recommended adjustments increase the earned return on equity for the test year to 7.24%. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana accepted the LPSC staff’s recommendations and a revenue increase of $688 thousand will be required as opposed to the $706 thousand requested by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The resulting change will be implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC in September 2014 seeking authorization to undertake the transactions that would result in the combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana into a single public utility. In the proceedings with the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana estimate that the business combination could produce up to $128 million in customer benefits including proposed guaranteed savings of $97 million in the first ten years. In April 2015 the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony in the LPSC business combination proceeding. The testimony recommends an extensive set of conditions that would be required in order to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination is in the public interest. The LPSC staff’s primary concern appears to be potential shifting in fuel costs between legacy Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. In May 2015, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony. The hearing in the LPSC proceeding is scheduled to take place in June 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana have requested that the LPSC issue its decision regarding the business combination in August 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization for the business combination and Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization of the Algiers asset transfer. In April 2015 the FERC issued orders approving certain of those business combination and the Algiers asset transfer applications. Other FERC applications related to the business combination remain pending. Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans) As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2014 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a transaction that would result in the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that currently serve Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In March 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the Algiers asset transfer be approved subject to certain conditions that Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans believe they will be able to satisfy. If the necessary approvals are obtained from the City Council, Entergy Louisiana expects to transfer the Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans in the second half of 2015. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers asset transfer. 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 that concluded the FERC did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-months period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003. Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, the FERC concluded that the refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in that proceeding. In March 2015, in light of the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish briefing schedule on refund issues and initial brief addressing refund issues. The initial brief argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in this proceeding. 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. In March 2015 the D.C. Circuit issued an unpublished order dismissing in part and denying in part the petition for review by the LPSC and denying the petition for review by Entergy. 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 April 2015, after issuance of the March 2015 unpublished opinion of the D.C. Circuit related to the 2007 rate proceeding, as discussed above, Entergy filed an unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of the petition for review of the FERC’s interest determination. In May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the Fifth Circuit’s 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 May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the Fifth Circuit’s decision. 2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. Interruptible Load Proceeding As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking review of FERC prior orders in the interruptible load proceeding that concluded that the FERC would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in this proceeding. In December 2014 the D.C. Circuit issued an order on the LPSC’s appeal and remanded the case back to the FERC. The D.C. Circuit rejected the LPSC’s argument that there is a presumption in favor of refunds, but it held that the FERC had not adequately explained its decision to deny refunds and directed the FERC “to consider the relevant factors and weigh them against one another.” In March 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish a briefing schedule on remand and an initial brief on remand to address the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit. The initial brief on remand argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in the interruptible load proceeding. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators Entergy New Orleans As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the securitization of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. In February 2015 the City Council approved a resolution establishing an expedited procedural schedule that provided for a hearing on the securitization application in late-April 2015, with a decision to be rendered no later than May 2015. In April 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the proposed securitization be approved subject to certain limited modifications, and Entergy New Orleans filed rebuttal testimony later in April 2015. Also in April 2015, the parties’ joint motion to continue the hearing to facilitate settlement negotiations was granted. Texas Power Price Lawsuit See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this lawsuit. In May 2015 the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing, withdrew its prior opinion, and set the case for resubmission in June 2015, without further argument.
Entergy Texas [Member]
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 and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Mississippi Mississippi Attorney General Complaint The Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. Entergy believes the complaint is unfounded. In December 2008 the defendant Entergy companies removed the Attorney General’s lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. The Mississippi attorney general moved to remand the matter to state court. In August 2012 the District Court issued an opinion denying the Attorney General’s motion for remand, finding that the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The defendant Entergy companies answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim for relief based upon the Mississippi Public Utilities Act and the Federal Power Act. In May 2009 the defendant Entergy companies filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting grounds of federal preemption, the exclusive jurisdiction of the MPSC, and factual errors in the Attorney General’s complaint. In September 2012 the District Court heard oral argument on Entergy’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In January 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in which it held that cases brought by attorneys general as the sole plaintiff to enforce state laws were not considered “mass actions” under the Class Action Fairness Act, so as to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. One day later the Attorney General renewed his motion to remand the Entergy case back to state court, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. The defendant Entergy companies responded to that motion reiterating the additional grounds asserted for federal question jurisdiction, and the District Court held oral argument on the renewed motion to remand in February 2014. In April 2015 the District Court entered an order denying the renewed motion to remand, holding that the District Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court has not yet ruled on the defendant Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, which if granted would dismiss the case. Entergy New Orleans In February 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to enter into a power purchase agreement, subject to certain conditions, with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana to purchase on a life-of-unit basis 20% of the capacity and related energy of the two power blocks of the Union Power Station that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana is seeking to purchase. In the application, Entergy New Orleans also seeks authorization from the City Council for full and timely cost recovery in rates for all costs associated with the power purchase agreement. In April 2015 the City Council approved a procedural schedule for this proceeding that would provide for a City Council decision in July 2015. 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 In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notifies the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requests a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requests a 10.2% return on common equity. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Gas (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2014. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 7.20%, which results in a $706 thousand rate increase. In April 2015 the LPSC issued findings recommending two adjustments to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s as-filed results, and an additional recommendation that does not affect current year results. The LPSC staff’s recommended adjustments increase the earned return on equity for the test year to 7.24%. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana accepted the LPSC staff’s recommendations and a revenue increase of $688 thousand will be required as opposed to the $706 thousand requested by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The resulting change will be implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC in September 2014 seeking authorization to undertake the transactions that would result in the combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana into a single public utility. In the proceedings with the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana estimate that the business combination could produce up to $128 million in customer benefits including proposed guaranteed savings of $97 million in the first ten years. In April 2015 the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony in the LPSC business combination proceeding. The testimony recommends an extensive set of conditions that would be required in order to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination is in the public interest. The LPSC staff’s primary concern appears to be potential shifting in fuel costs between legacy Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. In May 2015, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony. The hearing in the LPSC proceeding is scheduled to take place in June 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana have requested that the LPSC issue its decision regarding the business combination in August 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization for the business combination and Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization of the Algiers asset transfer. In April 2015 the FERC issued orders approving certain of those business combination and the Algiers asset transfer applications. Other FERC applications related to the business combination remain pending. Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans) As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2014 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a transaction that would result in the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that currently serve Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In March 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the Algiers asset transfer be approved subject to certain conditions that Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans believe they will be able to satisfy. If the necessary approvals are obtained from the City Council, Entergy Louisiana expects to transfer the Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans in the second half of 2015. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers asset transfer. 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 that concluded the FERC did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-months period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003. Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, the FERC concluded that the refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in that proceeding. In March 2015, in light of the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish briefing schedule on refund issues and initial brief addressing refund issues. The initial brief argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in this proceeding. 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. In March 2015 the D.C. Circuit issued an unpublished order dismissing in part and denying in part the petition for review by the LPSC and denying the petition for review by Entergy. 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 April 2015, after issuance of the March 2015 unpublished opinion of the D.C. Circuit related to the 2007 rate proceeding, as discussed above, Entergy filed an unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of the petition for review of the FERC’s interest determination. In May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the Fifth Circuit’s 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 May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the Fifth Circuit’s decision. 2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. Interruptible Load Proceeding As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking review of FERC prior orders in the interruptible load proceeding that concluded that the FERC would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in this proceeding. In December 2014 the D.C. Circuit issued an order on the LPSC’s appeal and remanded the case back to the FERC. The D.C. Circuit rejected the LPSC’s argument that there is a presumption in favor of refunds, but it held that the FERC had not adequately explained its decision to deny refunds and directed the FERC “to consider the relevant factors and weigh them against one another.” In March 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish a briefing schedule on remand and an initial brief on remand to address the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit. The initial brief on remand argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in the interruptible load proceeding. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators Entergy New Orleans As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the securitization of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. In February 2015 the City Council approved a resolution establishing an expedited procedural schedule that provided for a hearing on the securitization application in late-April 2015, with a decision to be rendered no later than May 2015. In April 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the proposed securitization be approved subject to certain limited modifications, and Entergy New Orleans filed rebuttal testimony later in April 2015. Also in April 2015, the parties’ joint motion to continue the hearing to facilitate settlement negotiations was granted. Texas Power Price Lawsuit See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this lawsuit. In May 2015 the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing, withdrew its prior opinion, and set the case for resubmission in June 2015, without further argument.
System Energy [Member]
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 and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Mississippi Mississippi Attorney General Complaint The Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. Entergy believes the complaint is unfounded. In December 2008 the defendant Entergy companies removed the Attorney General’s lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. The Mississippi attorney general moved to remand the matter to state court. In August 2012 the District Court issued an opinion denying the Attorney General’s motion for remand, finding that the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The defendant Entergy companies answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim for relief based upon the Mississippi Public Utilities Act and the Federal Power Act. In May 2009 the defendant Entergy companies filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting grounds of federal preemption, the exclusive jurisdiction of the MPSC, and factual errors in the Attorney General’s complaint. In September 2012 the District Court heard oral argument on Entergy’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In January 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in which it held that cases brought by attorneys general as the sole plaintiff to enforce state laws were not considered “mass actions” under the Class Action Fairness Act, so as to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. One day later the Attorney General renewed his motion to remand the Entergy case back to state court, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. The defendant Entergy companies responded to that motion reiterating the additional grounds asserted for federal question jurisdiction, and the District Court held oral argument on the renewed motion to remand in February 2014. In April 2015 the District Court entered an order denying the renewed motion to remand, holding that the District Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court has not yet ruled on the defendant Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, which if granted would dismiss the case. Entergy New Orleans In February 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to enter into a power purchase agreement, subject to certain conditions, with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana to purchase on a life-of-unit basis 20% of the capacity and related energy of the two power blocks of the Union Power Station that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana is seeking to purchase. In the application, Entergy New Orleans also seeks authorization from the City Council for full and timely cost recovery in rates for all costs associated with the power purchase agreement. In April 2015 the City Council approved a procedural schedule for this proceeding that would provide for a City Council decision in July 2015. 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 In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notifies the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requests a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requests a 10.2% return on common equity. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Gas (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2014. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 7.20%, which results in a $706 thousand rate increase. In April 2015 the LPSC issued findings recommending two adjustments to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s as-filed results, and an additional recommendation that does not affect current year results. The LPSC staff’s recommended adjustments increase the earned return on equity for the test year to 7.24%. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana accepted the LPSC staff’s recommendations and a revenue increase of $688 thousand will be required as opposed to the $706 thousand requested by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The resulting change will be implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC in September 2014 seeking authorization to undertake the transactions that would result in the combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana into a single public utility. In the proceedings with the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana estimate that the business combination could produce up to $128 million in customer benefits including proposed guaranteed savings of $97 million in the first ten years. In April 2015 the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony in the LPSC business combination proceeding. The testimony recommends an extensive set of conditions that would be required in order to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination is in the public interest. The LPSC staff’s primary concern appears to be potential shifting in fuel costs between legacy Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. In May 2015, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony. The hearing in the LPSC proceeding is scheduled to take place in June 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana have requested that the LPSC issue its decision regarding the business combination in August 2015. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization for the business combination and Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed applications with the FERC requesting authorization of the Algiers asset transfer. In April 2015 the FERC issued orders approving certain of those business combination and the Algiers asset transfer applications. Other FERC applications related to the business combination remain pending. Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans) As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2014 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a transaction that would result in the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that currently serve Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In March 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the Algiers asset transfer be approved subject to certain conditions that Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans believe they will be able to satisfy. If the necessary approvals are obtained from the City Council, Entergy Louisiana expects to transfer the Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans in the second half of 2015. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers asset transfer. 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 that concluded the FERC did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-months period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003. Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, the FERC concluded that the refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in that proceeding. In March 2015, in light of the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish briefing schedule on refund issues and initial brief addressing refund issues. The initial brief argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in this proceeding. 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. In March 2015 the D.C. Circuit issued an unpublished order dismissing in part and denying in part the petition for review by the LPSC and denying the petition for review by Entergy. 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 April 2015, after issuance of the March 2015 unpublished opinion of the D.C. Circuit related to the 2007 rate proceeding, as discussed above, Entergy filed an unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of the petition for review of the FERC’s interest determination. In May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the Fifth Circuit’s 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 May 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the LPSC’s petition for a writ of certiorari of the Fifth Circuit’s decision. 2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. 2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this proceeding. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. Interruptible Load Proceeding As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking review of FERC prior orders in the interruptible load proceeding that concluded that the FERC would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in this proceeding. In December 2014 the D.C. Circuit issued an order on the LPSC’s appeal and remanded the case back to the FERC. The D.C. Circuit rejected the LPSC’s argument that there is a presumption in favor of refunds, but it held that the FERC had not adequately explained its decision to deny refunds and directed the FERC “to consider the relevant factors and weigh them against one another.” In March 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish a briefing schedule on remand and an initial brief on remand to address the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit. The initial brief on remand argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in the interruptible load proceeding. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators Entergy New Orleans As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the securitization of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. In February 2015 the City Council approved a resolution establishing an expedited procedural schedule that provided for a hearing on the securitization application in late-April 2015, with a decision to be rendered no later than May 2015. In April 2015 the City Council’s Utility advisors filed direct testimony recommending that the proposed securitization be approved subject to certain limited modifications, and Entergy New Orleans filed rebuttal testimony later in April 2015. Also in April 2015, the parties’ joint motion to continue the hearing to facilitate settlement negotiations was granted. Texas Power Price Lawsuit See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this lawsuit. In May 2015 the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing, withdrew its prior opinion, and set the case for resubmission in June 2015, without further argument.