Rate And Regulatory Matters

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2015

Rate And Regulatory Matters

RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities

Regulatory assets represent probable future revenues associated with costs that Entergy expects to recover from customers through the regulatory ratemaking process under which the Utility business operates. Regulatory liabilities represent probable future reductions in revenues associated with amounts that Entergy expects to benefit customers through the regulatory ratemaking process under which the Utility business operates. In addition to the regulatory assets and liabilities that are specifically disclosed on the face of the balance sheets, the tables below provide detail of “Other regulatory assets” and “Other regulatory liabilities” that are included on Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and 2014:

Other Regulatory Assets

Entergy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$2,574.9		$2,798.8
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 – Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators) (Note 5 - Entergy Arkansas Securitization Bonds)	717.8		736.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	589.1		513.8
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	273.3		245.1
Little Gypsy costs – recovered through securitization (Note 5 – Entergy Louisiana Securitization Bonds - Little Gypsy)	121.1		139.2
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	66.7		76.2
Transition to competition costs - recovered over a 15-year period through February 2021	57.4		66.2
New nuclear generation development costs (Note 2 - New Nuclear Generation Development Costs) (c)	51.1		58.4
MISO implementation costs - recovery through retail rate riders (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	49.4		69.6
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined by retail regulators	32.2		54.7
Human capital management costs - recovery through retail rate mechanisms (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	28.3		42.3
Other	143.5		168.1
Entergy Total		$4,704.8		$4,968.6

Entergy Arkansas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$766.5		$838.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	288.0		254.8
Storm damage costs - recovered either through securitization or retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators) (Note 5 - Entergy Arkansas Securitization Bonds)	97.2		125.6
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	85.7		59.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	23.0		26.2
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	18.1		23.3
MISO implementation costs - recovery through retail rates through 2018 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (c)	17.5		25.1
Human capital management costs - recovery through retail rates through June 2017 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (c)	10.4		17.3
Lake Catherine 4 reliability and sustainability cost deferral - recovery expected through retail rates (c)	10.4		2.4
Incremental ice storm costs - recovered through 2032	8.4		9.0
Other	8.6		10.4
Entergy Arkansas Total		$1,333.8		$1,391.3

Entergy Louisiana

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$718.7		$774.0
Asset Retirement Obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	180.8		167.5
Little Gypsy costs – recovered through securitization (Note 5 – Entergy Louisiana Securitization Bonds - Little Gypsy)	119.2		139.2
New nuclear generation development costs - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2014 through November 2022 (Note 2 - New Nuclear Generation Development Costs) (c)	50.4		58.4
MISO implementation costs - recovery through the MISO cost recovery mechanism beginning December 2014 through November 2017 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	26.6		37.1
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	19.2		21.1
Human capital management costs - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2014 through November 2017 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	17.6		25.0
River Bend AFUDC - recovered through August 2025 (Note 1 – River Bend AFUDC)	16.7		18.6
Business combination external costs deferral - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2015 through November 2025 (c)	16.1		—
MISO integration deferral - recovery through the MISO cost recovery mechanism beginning December 2014 through November 2017	14.5		23.3
Gas hedging costs - recovered through fuel rates (Note 16 - Derivatives)	7.0		15.8
Spindletop gas storage facility - recovery period through August 2016 (a) (Note 2 - System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings)	1.1		26.2
Other	30.0		34.4
Entergy Louisiana Total		$1,217.9		$1,340.6

Entergy Mississippi

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$216.1		$224.3
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	77.5		76.3
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	7.6		27.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	7.1		8.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	6.7		6.3
Baxter Wilson outage costs - recovered through retail rates over two years beginning February 2015 (Note 8 - Baxter Wilson Plant Event)	3.2		6.0
MISO implementation costs - recovery through retail rate riders (Note 2 – Retail Rate Proceedings)	2.7		4.0
Other	7.8		12.6
Entergy Mississippi Total		$328.7		$364.7

Entergy New Orleans

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through retail rates and securitization (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators)		$104.0		$18.5
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)	103.7		115.8
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	29.4		35.2
Michoud plant maintenance – recovered over a 7-year period through September 2018	5.2		7.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	4.0		3.8
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined monthly or annually	3.1		0.4
Rate case costs - recovered through retail rates (c)	3.2		3.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	1.6		1.8
Other	11.1		9.2
Entergy New Orleans Total		$265.3		$194.9

Entergy Texas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators)		$516.2		$591.7
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)	193.6		217.0
Transition to competition costs - recovered over a 15-year period through February 2021	57.4		66.2
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	25.8		18.9
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	9.4		10.5
Rate case costs -recovered through retail rates (c)	3.8		8.4
Other	6.7		9.4
Entergy Texas Total		$812.9		$922.1

System Energy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans and Other Postretirement Benefits) (b)		$178.0		$191.0
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (b)	108.6		80.4
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	54.8		55.7
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	6.4		8.5
System Energy Total		$347.8		$335.6

(a) The jurisdictional split order assigned the regulatory asset to Entergy Texas.  The regulatory asset, however, is being recovered and amortized at Entergy Louisiana.  As a result, a billing occurs monthly over the same term as the recovery and receipts will be submitted to Entergy Texas.  Entergy Texas has recorded a receivable from Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana has recorded a corresponding payable.

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

(c) Does not earn a return on investment.

Other Regulatory Liabilities

Entergy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)		$611.7		$656.7
Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8)	222.6		242.8
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation (Note 2)	156.0		156.0
Business combination guaranteed customer benefits - returned to customers through retail rates and fuel rates beginning December 2015 through November 2024 (Note 2 - Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination)	105.2		—
Removal costs - returned to customers through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)	68.3		82.7
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback - (Note 10 - Sale and Leaseback Transactions)	67.9		79.5
Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - amortized and credited through the UPSA	46.4		53.6
Entergy Arkansas’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and FERC	44.4		44.4
Waterford 3 replacement steam generator provision (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	31.7		—
Asset retirement obligation - will be returned to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)	28.2		27.7
Other	32.5		40.2
Entergy Total		$1,414.9		$1,383.6

Entergy Arkansas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)		$236.1		$254.0
Other	6.8		—
Entergy Arkansas Total		$242.9		$254.0

Entergy Louisiana

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8)		$222.6		$242.8
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)	196.9		209.1
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation (Note 2)	156.0		156.0
Business combination guaranteed customer benefits - returned to customers through retail rates and fuel rates beginning December 2015 through November 2024 (Note 2 - Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination)	105.2		—
Removal costs - returned to customers through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)	68.3		82.6
Waterford 3 replacement steam generator provision (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	31.7		—
Asset Retirement Obligation - will be returned to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)	28.2		27.7
Other	9.7		4.2
Entergy Louisiana Total		$818.6		$722.4

Entergy Texas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Transition to competition costs - returned to customers through rate riders when rates are redetermined periodically		$6.4		$5.1
Entergy Texas Total		$6.4		$5.1

System Energy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)		$178.7		$193.6
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback - (Note 10 - Sale and Leaseback Transactions)	67.9		79.5
Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - amortized and credited through the UPSA	46.4		53.6
Entergy Arkansas’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and FERC	44.4		44.4
System Energy Total		$337.4		$371.1

(a) Offset by related asset.

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas are allowed to recover fuel and purchased power costs through fuel mechanisms included in electric and gas rates that are recorded as fuel cost recovery revenues.  The difference between revenues collected and the current fuel and purchased power costs is generally recorded as “Deferred fuel costs” on the Utility operating companies’ financial statements.  The table below shows the amount of deferred fuel costs as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 that Entergy expects to recover (or return to customers) through fuel mechanisms, subject to subsequent regulatory review.

	2015			2014
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas (a)		$57.8			$209.2
Entergy Louisiana (b)		$102.9			$107.1
Entergy Mississippi		($107.8	)		($2.2	)
Entergy New Orleans (b)		($24.9	)		($25.1	)
Entergy Texas		($25.1	)		$11.9

(a) 2015 and 2014 include respectively $66.7 million and $65.9 million for Entergy Arkansas of fuel, purchased power, and capacity costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

(b) 2015 and 2014 include $168.1 million for Entergy Louisiana and $4.1 million for Entergy New Orleans of fuel, purchased power, and capacity costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

Entergy Arkansas

Production Cost Allocation Rider

The APSC approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas as a result of the System Agreement proceedings, which are discussed in the “System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings” section below.  These costs cause an increase in Entergy Arkansas’s deferred fuel cost balance because Entergy Arkansas pays the costs over seven months but collects them from customers over twelve months.

In May 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider to recover the $3 million unrecovered retail balance as of December 31, 2013 and the $67.8 million System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment made in May 2014 as a result of the compliance filing pursuant to the FERC’s February 2014 orders related to the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. In June 2014 the APSC suspended the annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider and scheduled a hearing in September 2014. Upon a joint motion of the parties, the APSC canceled the September 2014 hearing and in January 2015 the APSC issued an order approving Entergy Arkansas’s request for recovery of the $3 million under-recovered amount based on the true-up of the production cost allocation rider and the $67.8 million May 2014 System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment subject to refund with interest, with recovery of these payments concluding with the last billing cycle in December 2015. The APSC also found that Entergy Arkansas is entitled to carrying charges pursuant to the current terms of the production cost allocation rider. Entergy Arkansas made its compliance filing pursuant to the order in January 2015 and the APSC issued its approval order, also in January 2015. The redetermined rate went into effect the first billing cycle of February 2015.

In May 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider, which included a $38 million payment made by Entergy Arkansas as a result of the FERC’s February 2014 order related to the comprehensive bandwidth recalculation for calendar year 2006, 2007, and 2008 production costs. The redetermined rate for the 2015 production cost allocation rider update was added to the redetermined rate from the 2014 production cost allocation rider update and the combined rate was effective with the first billing cycle of July 2015. This combined rate was effective through December 2015. The collection of the remainder of the redetermined rate for the 2015 production cost allocation rider update will continue through June 2016.

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

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

In October 2005 the APSC initiated an investigation into Entergy Arkansas’s interim energy cost recovery rate.  The investigation focused on Entergy Arkansas’s 1) gas contracting, portfolio, and hedging practices; 2) wholesale purchases during the period; 3) management of the coal inventory at its coal generation plants; and 4) response to the contractual failure of the railroads to provide coal deliveries.  In March 2006 the APSC extended its investigation to cover the costs included in Entergy Arkansas’s March 2006 annual energy cost rate filing, and a hearing was held in the APSC investigation in October 2006.

In January 2007 the APSC issued an order in its review of the energy cost rate.  The APSC found that Entergy Arkansas failed to maintain an adequate coal inventory level going into the summer of 2005 and that Entergy Arkansas should be responsible for any incremental energy costs that resulted from two outages caused by employee and contractor error.  The coal plant generation curtailments were caused by railroad delivery problems and Entergy Arkansas resolved litigation with the railroad regarding the delivery problems.  The APSC staff was directed to perform an analysis with Entergy Arkansas’s assistance to determine the additional fuel and purchased energy costs associated with these findings and file the analysis within sixty days of the order.  After a final determination of the costs is made by the APSC, Entergy Arkansas will be directed to refund that amount with interest to its customers as a credit on the energy cost recovery rider.  Entergy Arkansas requested rehearing of the order.

In February 2010 the APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s request for rehearing, and held a hearing in September 2010 to determine the amount of damages, if any, that should be assessed against Entergy Arkansas.  A decision is pending.  Entergy Arkansas expects the amount of damages, if any, to have an immaterial effect on its results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

The APSC also established a separate docket to consider the resolved railroad litigation, and in February 2010 it established a procedural schedule that concluded with testimony through September 2010.  The testimony was filed, and the APSC will decide the case based on the record in the proceeding.

In January 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion with the APSC relating to its redetermination of its energy cost rate that was filed in March 2014. In that motion, Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to exclude $65.9 million of deferred fuel and purchased energy costs incurred in 2013 from the redetermination of its 2014 energy cost rate. The $65.9 million is an estimate of the incremental fuel and replacement energy costs that Entergy Arkansas incurred as a result of the ANO stator incident. Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to retain that amount in its deferred fuel balance, with recovery to be reviewed in a later period after more information is available regarding various claims associated with the ANO stator incident. The APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’s request in February 2014. See the “ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews” section in Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of the ANO stator incident.

Entergy Louisiana

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

In April 2010 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009.  The LPSC staff issued its audit report in January 2013.  The LPSC staff recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $1.9 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $1 million from Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates.  The recommended refund was made by Entergy Louisiana in May 2013 in the form of a credit to customers through its fuel adjustment clause filing. Two parties intervened in the proceeding. A procedural schedule was established for the identification of issues by the intervenors and for Entergy Louisiana to submit comments regarding the LPSC Staff report and any issues raised by intervenors. One intervenor is seeking further proceedings regarding certain issues it raised in its comments on the LPSC Staff report. Entergy Louisiana has filed responses to both the LPSC Staff report and the issues raised by the intervenor. As required by the procedural schedule, a joint status report was submitted in October 2013 by the parties. A status conference was held in December 2013. Discovery has ceased and the parties are awaiting issuance of the audit report of the LPSC staff, but a procedural schedule has not been established.

In December 2011 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate another proceeding to audit the fuel adjustment clause filings of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and its affiliates.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period 2005 through 2009.  Discovery has ceased and the parties are awaiting issuance of the audit report of the LPSC staff, but a procedural schedule has not been established.

In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015.

In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015.

Entergy Mississippi

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

Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel balance of $60.4 million as of March 31, 2014. In May 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed for an interim adjustment under its energy cost recovery rider. The interim adjustment proposed a net energy cost factor designed to collect over a six-month period the under-recovered deferred fuel balance as of March 31, 2014 and also reflected a natural gas price of $4.50 per MMBtu. In May 2014, Entergy Mississippi and the Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation in which Entergy Mississippi agreed to a revised net energy cost factor that reflected the proposed interim adjustment with a reduction in costs recovered through the energy cost recovery rider associated with the suspension of the DOE nuclear waste storage fee. In June 2014 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation and allowed Entergy Mississippi’s interim adjustment. In November 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider.  Due to lower gas prices and a lower deferred fuel balance, the redetermined annual factor was a decrease from the revised interim net energy cost factor.  In January 2015 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective January 30, 2015.

Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel over-recovery balance of $58.3 million as of May 31, 2015, along with an under-recovery balance of $12.3 million under the power management rider. Pursuant to those tariffs, in July 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed for interim adjustments under both the energy cost recovery rider and the power management rider to flow through to customers the approximately $46 million net over-recovery over a six-month period. In August 2015, the MPSC approved the interim adjustments effective with September 2015 bills. In November 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included a projected over-recovery balance of $48 million projected through January 31, 2016. In January 2016 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective February 1, 2016. The MPSC further ordered, however, that due to the significant change in natural gas price forecasts since Entergy Mississippi’s filing in November 2015 Entergy Mississippi shall file a revised fuel factor with the MPSC no later than February 1, 2016. In February 2016, Entergy Mississippi submitted a revised fuel factor reflecting a natural gas price of $2.45 per MMBtu.

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 Attorney General appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the denial of the motion to remand. In July 2015 the Fifth Circuit issued an order denying the appeal, and the Attorney General subsequently filed a petition for rehearing of the request for interlocutory appeal, which was also denied. The case remains pending in federal district court, awaiting a ruling on the Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. In December 2015 the District Court ordered that the parties submit to the court undisputed and disputed facts that are material to the Entergy defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, as well as supplemental briefs regarding the same. Those filings were made in January 2016.

Entergy New Orleans

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

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

Entergy Texas

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

In October 2012, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to refund approximately $78 million, including interest, of fuel cost recovery over-collections through September 2012.  Entergy Texas requested that the refund be implemented over a six-month period effective with the January 2013 billing month.  Entergy Texas and the parties to the proceeding reached an agreement that Entergy Texas would refund $84 million, including interest and additional over-recoveries through October 2012, to most customers over a three-month period beginning January 2013.  The PUCT approved the stipulation in January 2013. Entergy Texas completed this refund to customers in March 2013.

In July 2012, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application to credit its customers approximately $37.5 million, including interest, resulting from the FERC’s October 2011 order in the System Agreement rough production cost equalization proceeding which is discussed below in “System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings.”  In September 2012 the parties submitted a stipulation resolving the proceeding.  The stipulation provided that most Entergy Texas customers would be credited over a four-month period beginning October 2012.  The credits were initiated with the October 2012 billing month on an interim basis, and the PUCT subsequently approved the stipulation, also in October 2012.

In August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking PUCT approval to implement an interim fuel refund of approximately $24.6 million for over-collected fuel costs incurred during the months of November 2012 through April 2014. This refund resulted from (i) applying $48.6 million in bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received in May 2014 related to the June - December 2005 period to Entergy Texas’s $8.7 million under-recovered fuel balance as of April 30, 2014 and (ii) netting that fuel balance against the $15.3 million bandwidth remedy paymentthat Entergy Texas made related to calendar year 2013 production costs. Also in August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed motion for interim rates to implement these refunds for most customers over a two-month period commencing with September 2014. The PUCT issued its order approving the interim relief in August 2014 and Entergy Texas completed the refunds in October 2014.Parties intervened in this matter, and all parties agreed that the proceeding should be bifurcated such that the proposed interim refund would become final in a separate proceeding, which refund was approved by the PUCT in March 2015.   In July 2015 certain parties filed briefs in the open proceeding asserting that Entergy Texas should refund to retail customers an additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs.  In October 2015 an ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments be refunded to retail customers. In January 2016 the PUCT issued its order affirming the ALJ’s recommendation, and Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the PUCT’s decision, which the PUCT denied.

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

Retail Rate Proceedings

Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas)

Retail Rates

2013 Base Rate Filing

In March 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing assumed Entergy Arkansas’s transition to MISO in December 2013, and requested a rate increase of $174 million, including $49 million of revenue being transferred from collection in riders to base rates. The filing also proposed a new transmission rider and a capacity cost recovery rider. The filing requested a 10.4% return on common equity. In September 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed testimony reflecting an updated rate increase request of $145 million, with no change to its requested return on common equity of 10.4%. Hearings in the proceeding began in October 2013, and in December 2013 the APSC issued an order. The order authorized a base rate increase of $81 million and included an authorized return on common equity of 9.3%. The order allowed Entergy Arkansas to amortize its human capital management costs over a three-and-a-half year period, but also ordered Entergy Arkansas to file a detailed report of the Arkansas-specific costs, savings and final payroll changes upon conclusion of the human capital management strategic imperative. The detailed report was subsequently filed in February 2015. The substance of the report was addressed in Entergy Arkansas’s 2015 base rate filing. New rates under the January 2014 order were implemented in the first billing cycle of March 2014 and were effective as of January 2014. Additionally, in January 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition for rehearing or clarification of several aspects of the APSC’s order, including the 9.3% authorized return on common equity. In February 2014 the APSC granted Entergy Arkansas’s petition for the purpose of considering the additional evidence identified by Entergy Arkansas. In August 2014 the APSC issued an order amending certain aspects of the original order, including providing for a 9.5% authorized return on common equity. Pursuant to the August 2014 order, revised rates were effective for all bills rendered after December 31, 2013 and were implemented in the first billing cycle of October 2014.

2015 Base Rate Filing

In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notified the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a forward test year formula rate plan pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requested a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requested a 10.2% return on common equity. In May 2015 the APSC issued an order suspending the proposed rates and tariffs filed by Entergy Arkansas and establishing a procedural schedule to complete its investigation of Entergy Arkansas’s application. In September 2015, APSC staff and intervenors filed direct testimony, with the APSC staff recommending a revenue requirement of $217.9 million and a 9.65% return on common equity. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in October 2015. In December 2015, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and certain of the intervenors in the rate case filed with the APSC a joint motion for approval of a settlement of the case that proposes a retail rate increase of approximately $225 million with a net increase in revenue of approximately $133 million; an authorized return on common equity of 9.75%; and a formula rate plan tariff that provides a 50 basis point band around the 9.75% allowed return on common equity.

A hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that would reduce the retail rate increase proposed in the settlement by $5 million. The parties were directed to inform the APSC by filing no later than February 26, 2016 whether they accept the APSC’s proposed settlement agreement modification or request a full hearing on the issues. Entergy Arkansas plans to make its first formula rate plan filing in July 2016 for rates effective with the first billing cycle of January 2017.

A significant portion of the rate increase is related to Entergy Arkansas’s acquisition of Union Power Station Power Block 2 for an expected base purchase price of $237 million, subject to adjustment. The acquisition is expected to be completed promptly following the receipt of FERC approval. If the acquisition closes on or before March 24, 2016, recovery of the costs to acquire Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station will be through Entergy Arkansas’s new base rates that will commence with the first billing cycle of April 2016. If the transaction closes after that date, the parties have agreed to concurrent cost recovery through Entergy Arkansas’s capacity acquisition rider.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)

Retail Rates - Electric

2013 Rate Cases

In connection with its decision to extend the formula rate plan to the 2011 test year, the LPSC required that a base rate case be filed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, and the required filing was made in February 2013. The filing anticipated Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s integration into MISO. In the filing Entergy Gulf States Louisiana requested, among other relief:

• authorization to increase the revenue it collects from customers by approximately $24 million;

• an authorized return on common equity of 10.4%;

• authorization to increase depreciation rates embedded in the proposed revenue requirement; and,

• authorization to implement a three-year formula rate plan with a midpoint return on common equity of 10.4%, plus or minus 75 basis points (the deadband), that would provide a means for the annual re-setting of rates (commencing with calendar year 2013 as its first test year), that would include a mechanism to recover incremental transmission revenue requirement on the basis of a forward-looking test year as compared to the initial base year of 2014 with an annual true-up, that would retain the primary aspects of the prior formula rate plan, including a 60% to customers/40% to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana sharing mechanism for earnings outside the deadband, and a capacity rider mechanism that would permit recovery of incremental capacity additions approved by the LPSC.

Following a hearing before an ALJ and the ALJ’s issuance of a Report of Proceedings, in December 2013 the LPSC approved an unopposed settlement of the proceeding. Major terms of the settlement included approval of a three-year formula rate plan (effective for test years 2014-2016) modeled after the formula rate plan in effect for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana for 2011, including the following: (1) a midpoint return on equity of 9.95% plus or minus 80 basis points, with 60/40 sharing of earnings outside of the bandwidth; (2) recovery outside of the sharing mechanism for the non-fuel MISO-related costs, additional capacity revenue requirement, extraordinary items, such as the Ninemile 6 project, and certain special recovery items; (3) three-year amortization of costs to achieve savings associated with the human capital management strategic imperative, with savings to be reflected as they are realized in subsequent years; (4) eight-year amortization of costs incurred in connection with potential development of a new nuclear unit at River Bend, without carrying costs, beginning December 2014, provided, however, that amortization of these costs shall not result in a future rate increase; (5) no change in rates related to test year 2013, except with respect to recovery of the non-fuel MISO-related costs and any changes to the additional capacity revenue requirement; and (6) no increase in rates related to test year 2014, except for those items eligible for recovery outside of the earnings sharing mechanism. Existing depreciation rates will not change. Implementation of rate changes for items recoverable outside of the earnings sharing mechanism occurred in December 2014.

Pursuant to the rate case settlement approved by the LPSC in December 2013, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted a compliance filing in May 2014 reflecting the effects of the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism revenue requirement and adjustment of the additional capacity mechanism. In November 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted an additional compliance filing updating the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism for the most recent actual data. Based on this updated filing, a net increase of $5.8 million in formula rate plan revenue to be collected over nine months was implemented in December 2014. The compliance filings are subject to LPSC review in accordance with the review process set forth in Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s formula rate plan.

In November 2011 the LPSC approved a one-year extension of Entergy Louisiana’s formula rate plan.  In May 2012, Entergy Louisiana made its formula rate plan filing with the LPSC for the 2011 test year.  The filing reflected a 9.63% earned return on common equity, which is within the earnings bandwidth and resulted in no cost of service rate change under the formula rate plan.  The filing also reflected an $18.1 million rate increase for the incremental capacity rider.  In August 2012, Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised filing that reflected an earned return on common equity of 10.38%, which is still within the earnings bandwidth, resulting in no cost of service rate change.  The revised filing also indicated that an increase of $15.9 million should be reflected in the incremental capacity rider.  The rate change was implemented, subject to refund, effective for bills rendered the first billing cycle of September 2012.  Subsequently, in December 2012, Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised evaluation report that reflected two items: 1) a $17 million reduction for the first-year capacity charges for the purchase by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana from Entergy Louisiana of one-third of Acadia Unit 2 capacity and energy, and 2) an $88 million increase for the first-year retail revenue requirement associated with the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, which was in-service in December 2012.  These rate changes were implemented, subject to refund, effective with the first billing cycle of January 2013.  In April 2013, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint report resolving the 2011 test year formula rate plan and recovery related to the Grand Gulf uprate. This report was approved by the LPSC in April 2013.

In connection with its decision to extend the formula rate plan to the 2011 test year, the LPSC required that a base rate case be filed by Entergy Louisiana, and the required filing was made on February 15, 2013. The filing anticipated Entergy Louisiana’s integration into MISO. In the filing Entergy Louisiana requested, among other relief:

• authorization to increase the revenue it collects from customers by approximately $145 million (which does not take into account a revenue offset of approximately $2 million resulting from a proposed increase for those customers taking service under the Qualifying Facility Standby Service);

• an authorized return on common equity of 10.4%;

• authorization to increase depreciation rates embedded in the proposed revenue requirement; and

• authorization to implement a three-year formula rate plan with a midpoint return on common equity of 10.4%, plus or minus 75 basis points (the deadband), that would provide a means for the annual re-setting of rates (commencing with calendar year 2013 as its first test year), that would include a mechanism to recover incremental transmission revenue requirement on the basis of a forward-looking test year as compared to the initial base year of 2014 with an annual true-up, that would retain the primary aspects of the prior formula rate plan, including a 60% to customers/40% to Entergy Louisiana sharing mechanism for earnings outside the deadband, and a capacity rider mechanism that would permit recovery of incremental capacity additions approved by the LPSC.

Following a hearing before an ALJ and the ALJ’s issuance of a Report of Proceedings, in December 2013 the LPSC approved an unopposed settlement of the proceeding. The settlement provided for a $10 million rate increase effective with the first billing cycle of December 2014. Major terms of the settlement included approval of a three-year formula rate plan (effective for test years 2014-2016) modeled after the formula rate plan in effect for Entergy Louisiana for 2011, including the following: (1) a midpoint return on equity of 9.95% plus or minus 80 basis points, with 60/40 sharing of earnings outside of the bandwidth; (2) recovery outside of the sharing mechanism for the non-fuel MISO-related costs, additional capacity revenue requirement, extraordinary items, such as the Ninemile 6 project, and certain special recovery items; (3) three-year amortization of costs to achieve savings associated with the human capital management strategic imperative, with savings reflected as they are realized in subsequent years; (4) eight-year amortization of costs incurred in connection with potential development of a new nuclear unit at River Bend, without carrying costs, beginning December 2014, provided, however, that amortization of these costs shall not result in a future rate increase; (5) recovery of non-fuel MISO-related costs and any changes to the additional capacity revenue requirement related to test year 2013 effective with the first billing cycle of December 2014; and (6) a cumulative $30 million cap on cost of service increases over the three-year formula rate plan cycle, except for those items outside of the sharing mechanism. Existing depreciation rates will not change.

Pursuant to the rate case settlement approved by the LPSC in December 2013, Entergy Louisiana submitted a compliance filing in May 2014 reflecting the effects of the $10 million agreed-upon increase in formula rate plan revenue, the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism revenue requirement, and the adjustment of the additional capacity mechanism. In November 2014, Entergy Louisiana submitted an additional compliance filing updating the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism for the most recent actual data, as well as providing for a refund and prospective reduction in rates for the true-up of the estimated revenue requirement for the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project. Based on this updated filing, a net increase of $41.6 million in formula rate plan revenue to be collected over nine months was implemented in December 2014. The compliance filings are subject to LPSC review in accordance with the review process set forth in Entergy Louisiana’s formula rate plan. Additionally, the adjustments of rates made related to the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project included in the December 2014 compliance filing are subject to final true-up following completion of the LPSC’s determination regarding the prudence of the project. LPSC staff identified five issues, of which two remain. The remaining issues pertain to Entergy Louisiana’s method of collecting the agreed-upon $10 million increase and the level of recovery of investment related to the Grand Gulf uprate. No procedural schedule has been established, however, to address these remaining issues. The final issue raised by the LPSC staff pertains to the appropriate level of refunds related to the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project. That issue will be resolved in connection with the Waterford 3 prudence review proceedings discussed below.

Waterford 3 Replacement Steam Generator Project

Following the completion of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, the LPSC undertook a prudence review in connection with a filing made by Entergy Louisiana in April 2013 with regard to the following aspects of the replacement project: 1) project management; 2) cost controls; 3) success in achieving stated objectives; 4) the costs of the replacement project; and 5) the outage length and replacement power costs. In July 2014 the LPSC Staff filed testimony recommending potential project and replacement power cost disallowances of up to $71 million, citing a need for further explanation or documentation from Entergy Louisiana.  An intervenor filed testimony recommending disallowance of $141 million of incremental project costs, claiming the steam generator fabricator was imprudent.  Entergy Louisiana provided further documentation and explanation requested by the LPSC staff. An evidentiary hearing was held in December 2014. At the hearing the parties maintained the positions reflected in pre-filed testimony. Entergy Louisiana believes that the replacement steam generator costs were prudently incurred and applicable legal principles support their recovery in rates.  Nevertheless, Entergy Louisiana recorded a write-off of $16 million of Waterford 3’s plant balance in December 2014 because of the uncertainty at the time associated with the resolution of the prudence review. In December 2015 the ALJ issued a proposed recommendation, which was subsequently finalized, concluding that Entergy Louisiana prudently managed the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, including the selection, use, and oversight of contractors, and could not reasonably have anticipated the damage to the steam generators. Nevertheless, the ALJ concluded that Entergy Louisiana was liable for the conduct of its contractor and subcontractor and, therefore, recommended a disallowance of $67 million in capital costs. Additionally, the ALJ concluded that Entergy Louisiana did not sufficiently justify the incurrence of $2 million in replacement power costs during the replacement outage. Although the ALJ’s recommendation has yet to be considered by the LPSC, after considering the progress of the proceeding in light of the ALJ recommendation, Entergy Louisiana recorded in the fourth quarter 2015 approximately $77 million in charges, including a $45 million asset write-off and a $32 million regulatory charge, to reflect that a portion of the assets associated with the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project is no longer probable of recovery. Entergy Louisiana maintains that the ALJ’s recommendation contains significant factual and legal errors.

Ninemile 6

In July 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed stipulation with the LPSC that estimated a first year revenue requirement associated with Ninemile 6 and provided a mechanism to update the revenue requirement as the in-service date approached, which was subsequently approved by the LPSC. In late-December 2014, roughly contemporaneous with the unit's placement in service, a final updated estimated revenue requirement of $26.8 million for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and $51.1 million for Entergy Louisiana was filed. The December 2014 estimate forms the basis of rates implemented effective with the first billing cycle of January 2015. In July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a compliance filing including an estimate at completion, inclusive of interconnection costs and transmission upgrades, of approximately $648 million, or $76 million less than originally estimated, along with other project details and supporting evidence, to enable the LPSC to review the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s management of the project. A hearing is scheduled in March 2016.

Union Power Station

In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed its application with the LPSC for approval of the acquisition and cost recovery of two power blocks of the Union Power Station for an expected base purchase price of approximately $237 million per power block, subject to adjustments. In September 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana agreed to settlement terms with all parties for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s purchase of the two power blocks. In October 2015 the LPSC voted unanimously to approve the uncontested settlement which finds, among other things, that acquisition of Power Blocks 3 and 4 is in the public interest and, therefore, prudent. The business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana received regulatory approval and closed in October 2015 making Entergy Louisiana the named purchaser of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station.

Business Combination

In connection with the approval of the business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana, the LPSC authorized the filing of a single, joint formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. The joint evaluation report was filed in September 2015 and reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.09%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following adjustments are required under the formula rate plan, however: a decrease in the additional capacity mechanism for Entergy Louisiana of $17.8 million; an increase in the additional capacity mechanism for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana of $4.3 million; and a reduction of $5.5 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism, to collect approximately $35.7 million on a combined-company basis. Under the order approving the business combination, following completion of the prescribed review period, rates were implemented with the first billing cycle of December 2015, subject to refund. In November 2015, the LPSC staff filed objections, corrections, and comments identifying several issues for potential rate adjustments, including: preservation of previously-raised issues; the implementation of the $10 million increase in annual formula rate plan revenue over abbreviated rate-effective period; the level of adjustment to rates for the extended power uprate at System Energy, as well as asserting a general reservation of rights for further review of adjustments related to Ninemile 6 and the Waterford 3 provision for rate refund; change to gross plant, depreciation, and net plant components of rate base; regulatory debits and credits; adjustment for business combination expenses and the implementation of certain guaranteed customer credits. See “Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination” below for further discussion of the business combination.

Retail Rates - Gas

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

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

In accordance with the settlement of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2012, in August 2014 Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted for consideration a proposal for implementation of an infrastructure rider to recover expenditures associated with strategic plant investment and relocation projects mandated by local governments. After review by the LPSC staff and inclusion of certain customer safeguards required by the LPSC staff, in December 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the LPSC staff submitted a joint settlement for implementation of an accelerated gas pipe replacement program providing for the replacement of approximately 100 miles of pipe over the next ten years, as well as relocation of certain existing pipe resulting from local government-related infrastructure projects, and for a rider to recover the investment associated with these projects. The rider allows for recovery of approximately $65 million over ten years. The rider recovery will be adjusted on a quarterly basis to include actual investment incurred for the prior quarter and is subject to the following conditions, among others: a ten-year term; application of any earnings in excess of 10.45% as an offset to the revenue requirement of the infrastructure rider; adherence to a specified spending plan, within plus or minus 20% annually; annual filings comparing actual versus planned rider spending with actual spending and explanation of variances exceeding 10%; and an annual true-up. The joint settlement was approved by the LPSC in January 2015. Implementation of the infrastructure rider commenced with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of April 2015.

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 resulted 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 was implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015.

In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2015. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 10.22%, which is within the authorized bandwidth, therefore requiring no change in rates. Absent approval of an extension by the LPSC, test year 2015 is the final year under the current gas rate stabilization plan. In February 2016, however, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the terms of the gas rate stabilization plan for an additional three-year term.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Formula Rate Plan Filings

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

In June 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed its first general rate case before the MPSC in almost 12 years.  The rate filing laid out Entergy Mississippi’s plans for improving reliability, modernizing the grid, maintaining its workforce, stabilizing rates, utilizing new technologies, and attracting new industry to its service territory.  Entergy Mississippi requested a net increase in revenue of $49 million for bills rendered during calendar year 2015, including $30 million resulting from new depreciation rates to update the estimated service life of assets.  In addition, the filing proposed, among other things: 1) realigning cost recovery of the Attala and Hinds power plant acquisitions from the power management rider to base rates; 2) including certain MISO-related revenues and expenses in the power management rider; 3) power management rider changes that reflect the changes in costs and revenues that will accompany Entergy Mississippi’s withdrawal from participation in the System Agreement; and 4) a formula rate plan forward test year to allow for known changes in expenses and revenues for the rate effective period.  Entergy Mississippi proposed maintaining the current authorized return on common equity of 10.59%. 

In October 2014, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into and filed joint stipulations that addressed the majority of issues in the proceeding. The stipulations provided for:

• an approximate $16 million net increase in revenues, which reflected an agreed upon 10.07% return on common equity;

• revision of Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan by providing Entergy Mississippi with the ability to reflect known and measurable changes to historical rate base and certain expense amounts; resolving uncertainty around and obviating the need for an additional rate filing in connection with Entergy Mississippi’s withdrawal from participation in the System Agreement; updating depreciation rates; and moving costs associated with the Attala and Hinds generating plants from the power management rider to base rates;

• recovery of non-fuel MISO-related costs through a separate rider for that purpose;

• a deferral of $6 million in other operation and maintenance expenses associated with the Baxter Wilson outage and a determination that the regulatory asset should accrue carrying costs, with amortization of the regulatory asset over two years beginning in February 2015, and a provision that the capital costs will be reflected in rate base. See Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Baxter Wilson outage; and

• consolidation of the new nuclear generation development costs proceeding with the general rate case proceeding for hearing purposes and a determination that Entergy Mississippi would not further pursue, except as noted below, recovery of the costs that were approved for deferral by the MPSC in November 2011. The stipulations state, however, that, if Entergy Mississippi decides to move forward with nuclear development in Mississippi, it can at that time re-present for consideration by the MPSC only those costs directly associated with the existing early site permit (ESP), to the extent that the costs are verifiable and prudent and the ESP is still valid and relevant to any such option pursued. See “New Nuclear Generation Development Costs - Entergy Mississippi” below for further discussion of the new nuclear generation development costs proceeding and subsequent write-off in 2014 of the regulatory asset related to those costs.

In December 2014 the MPSC issued an order accepting the stipulations in their entirety and approving the revenue adjustments and rate changes effective with February 2015 bills.

Filings with the City Council

(Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans)

In March 2013, Entergy Louisiana filed a rate case for the Algiers area, which is in New Orleans and is regulated by the City Council. Entergy Louisiana requested a rate increase of $13 million over three years, including a 10.4% return on common equity and a formula rate plan mechanism identical to its LPSC request. In January 2014 the City Council Advisors filed direct testimony recommending a rate increase of $5.56 million over three years, including an 8.13% return on common equity. In June 2014 the City Council unanimously approved a settlement that includes the following:

• a $9.3 million base rate revenue increase to be phased in on a levelized basis over four years;

• recovery of an additional $853 thousand annually through a MISO recovery rider; and

• the adoption of a four-year formula rate plan requiring the filing of annual evaluation reports in May of each year, commencing May 2015, with resulting rates being implemented in October of each year. The formula rate plan includes a midpoint target authorized return on common equity of 9.95% with a +/- 40 basis point bandwidth.

The rate increase was effective with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of July 2014. Additional compliance filings were made with the Council in October 2014 for approval of the form of certain rate riders, including among others, a Ninemile 6 non-fuel cost recovery interim rider, allowing for contemporaneous recovery of capacity costs related to the commencement of commercial operation of the Ninemile 6 generating unit and a purchased power capacity cost recovery rider. The monthly Ninemile 6 cost recovery interim rider was implemented in December 2014 to initially collect $915 thousand from Entergy Louisiana customers in the Algiers area. See “Algiers Asset Transfer ” below for discussion of the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that serve Algiers customers.

(Entergy New Orleans)

Formula Rate Plan

In April 2009 the City Council approved a three-year formula rate plan for Entergy New Orleans, with terms including an 11.1% benchmark electric return on common equity (ROE) with a +/-40 basis point bandwidth and a 10.75% benchmark gas ROE with a +/-50 basis point bandwidth.  Earnings outside the bandwidth reset to the midpoint benchmark ROE, with rates changing on a prospective basis depending on whether Entergy New Orleans was over- or under-earning.  The formula rate plan also included a recovery mechanism for City Council-approved capacity additions, plus provisions for extraordinary cost changes and force majeure events.

In May 2012, Entergy New Orleans filed its electric and gas formula rate plan evaluation reports for the 2011 test year.  Subsequent adjustments agreed upon with the City Council Advisors indicate a $4.9 million electric base revenue increase and a $0.05 million gas base revenue increase as necessary under the formula rate plan.  As part of the original filing, Entergy New Orleans also requested to increase annual funding for its storm reserve by approximately $5.7 million for five years.  On September 26, 2012, Entergy New Orleans made a filing with the City Council that implemented the $4.9 million electric formula rate plan rate increase and the $0.05 million gas formula rate plan rate increase.  The new rates were effective with the first billing cycle in October 2012.  In August 2013 the City Council unanimously approved a settlement of all issues in the formula rate plan proceeding.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Entergy New Orleans implemented an approximately $1.625 million net decrease to the electric rates that were in effect prior to the electric rate increase implemented in October 2012, with no change in gas rates.  Entergy New Orleans refunded to customers approximately $6 million over the four-month period from September 2013 through December 2013 to make the electric rate decrease effective as of the first billing cycle of October 2012.  Entergy New Orleans had previously recorded provisions for the majority of the refund to customers, but recorded an additional $1.1 million provision in second quarter 2013 as a result of the settlement. Entergy New Orleans’s formula rate plan ended with the 2011 test year and has not been extended.  

See “Algiers Asset Transfer ” below for discussion of the Algiers asset transfer. As a provision of the settlement agreement approved by the City Council in May 2015 providing for the Algiers asset transfer, it was agreed that, with limited exceptions, no action may be taken with respect to Entergy New Orleans’s base rates until rates are implemented from a base rate case that must be filed for its electric and gas operations in 2018. This provision eliminated the formula rate plan applicable to Algiers operations. The limited exceptions include continued implementation of the remaining two years of the four-year phased-in rate increase for its operations in the Algiers area and certain exceptional cost increases or decreases in its base revenue requirement. An additional provision of the settlement agreement allows for continued recovery of the revenue requirement associated with the capacity and energy from Ninemile 6 received by Entergy New Orleans under a power purchase agreement with Entergy Louisiana (Algiers PPA). The settlement authorizes Entergy New Orleans to recover the remaining revenue requirement related to the Algiers PPA through base rates charged to Algiers customers. The settlement also provided for continued implementation of the Algiers MISO recovery rider.

In addition to the Algiers PPA, Entergy New Orleans has a separate power purchase agreement with Entergy Louisiana for 20% of the capacity and energy of the Ninemile Unit 6 generating station (Ninemile PPA), which commenced operation in December 2014. Initially, recovery of the non-fuel costs associated with the Ninemile PPA was authorized through a special Ninemile 6 rider billed to only Entergy New Orleans customers outside of Algiers.

In August 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to proceed with the acquisition of Union Power Block 1, with an expected base purchase price of approximately $237 million, subject to adjustments, and seeking approval of the recovery of the associated costs. In November 2015 the City Council issued written resolutions and an order approving an agreement in principle between Entergy New Orleans and City Council advisors providing that the purchase of Union Power Block 1 and related assets by Entergy New Orleans is prudent and in the public interest. The City Council authorized expansion of the special Ninemile 6 rider, discussed above, to cover the non-fuel purchased power from Ninemile 6 as well as the revenue requirement associated with the acquisition of Union Power Block 1, upon closing of the transaction.

A 2008 rate case settlement included $3.1 million per year in electric rates to fund the Energy Smart energy efficiency programs.  In September 2009 the City Council approved the energy efficiency programs filed by Entergy New Orleans.  The rate settlement provides an incentive for Entergy New Orleans to meet or exceed energy savings targets set by the City Council and provides a mechanism for Entergy New Orleans to recover lost contribution to fixed costs associated with the energy savings generated from the energy efficiency programs. In October 2013 the City Council approved the extension of the current Energy Smart program through December 2014. The City Council approved the use of $3.5 million of rough production cost equalization funds for program costs. In addition, Entergy New Orleans will be allowed to recover its lost contribution to fixed costs and to earn an incentive for meeting program goals. In January 2015 the City Council approved extending the Energy Smart program through March 2015 and using $1.2 million of rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs for the extended period. Additionally, the City Council approved funding for the Energy Smart 2 programs from April 2015 through March 2017 using the remainder of the approximately $12.8 million of 2014 rough production cost equalization funds, and with any remaining costs being recovered through the fuel adjustment clause. This funding methodology was modified in November 2015 when the City Council directed Entergy New Orleans to use a combination of guaranteed customer savings related to a prior agreement with the City Council and rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs prior to recovering any costs through the fuel adjustment clause.

Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas)

Retail Rates

2011 Rate Case

In November 2011, Entergy Texas filed a rate case requesting a $112 million base rate increase reflecting a 10.6% return on common equity based on an adjusted June 2011 test year.  The rate case also proposed a purchased power recovery rider.  On January 12, 2012, the PUCT voted not to address the purchased power recovery rider in the current rate case, but the PUCT voted to set a baseline in the rate case proceeding that would be applicable if a purchased power capacity rider is approved in a separate proceeding.  In April 2012 the PUCT Staff filed direct testimony recommending a base rate increase of $66 million and a 9.6% return on common equity.  The PUCT Staff, however, subsequently filed a statement of position in the proceeding indicating that it was still evaluating the position it would ultimately take in the case regarding Entergy Texas’s recovery of purchased power capacity costs and Entergy Texas’s proposal to defer its MISO transition expenses.  In April 2012, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony indicating a revised request for a $105 million base rate increase.  A hearing was held in late-April through early-May 2012.

In September 2012 the PUCT issued an order approving a $28 million rate increase, effective July 2012.  The order includes a finding that “a return on common equity (ROE) of 9.80 percent will allow [Entergy Texas] a reasonable opportunity to earn a reasonable return on invested capital.”  The order also provides for increases in depreciation rates and the annual storm reserve accrual.  The order also reduced Entergy Texas’s proposed purchased power capacity costs, stating that they are not known and measurable; reduced Entergy Texas’s regulatory assets associated with Hurricane Rita; excluded from rate recovery capitalized financially-based incentive compensation; included $1.6 million of MISO transition expense in base rates, and reduced Entergy’s Texas’s fuel reconciliation recovery by $4 million because it disagreed with the line-loss factor used in the calculation.  After considering the progress of the proceeding in light of the PUCT order, Entergy Texas recorded in the third quarter 2012 an approximate $24 million charge to recognize that assets associated with Hurricane Rita, financially-based incentive compensation, and fuel recovery are no longer probable of recovery.  Entergy Texas continues to believe that it is entitled to recover these prudently incurred costs, however, and it filed a motion for rehearing regarding these and several other issues in the PUCT’s order on October 4, 2012.  Several other parties also filed motions for rehearing of the PUCT’s order.  The PUCT subsequently denied rehearing of substantive issues.  Several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. A hearing was held in July 2014. In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced above, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Briefs were filed by the appealing and responding parties in the first half of 2015. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. The appeal is currently pending.

2013 Rate Case

In September 2013, Entergy Texas filed a rate case requesting a $38.6 million base rate increase reflecting a 10.4% return on common equity based on an adjusted test year ending March 31, 2013. The rate case also proposed (1) a rough production cost equalization adjustment rider recovering Entergy Texas’s payment to Entergy New Orleans to achieve rough production cost equalization based on calendar year 2012 production costs and (2) a rate case expense rider recovering the cost of the 2013 rate case and certain costs associated with previous rate cases. The rate case filing also included a request to reconcile $0.9 billion of fuel and purchased power costs and fuel revenues covering the period July 2011 through March 2013. The fuel reconciliation also reflects special circumstances fuel cost recovery of approximately $22 million of purchased power capacity costs. In January 2014 the PUCT staff filed direct testimony recommending a retail rate reduction of $0.3 million and a 9.2% return on common equity. In March 2014, Entergy Texas filed an Agreed Motion for Interim Rates. The motion explained that the parties to this proceeding have agreed that Entergy Texas should be allowed to implement new rates reflecting an $18.5 million base rate increase, effective for usage on and after April 1, 2014, as well as recovery of charges for rough production cost equalization and rate case expenses. In March 2014 the State Office of Administrative Hearings, the body assigned to hear the case, approved the motion. In April 2014, Entergy Texas filed a unanimous stipulation in this case. Among other things, the stipulation provides for an $18.5 million base rate increase, provides for recovery over three years of the calendar year 2012 rough production cost equalization charges and rate case expenses, and states a 9.8% return on common equity. In addition, the stipulation finalizes the fuel and purchased power reconciliation covering the period July 2011 through March 2013, with the parties stipulating an immaterial fuel disallowance. No special circumstances recovery of purchased power capacity costs was allowed. In April 2014 the State Office of Administrative Hearings remanded the case back to the PUCT for final processing. In May 2014 the PUCT approved the stipulation. No motions for rehearing were filed during the statutory rehearing period.

2015 Rate Case

In June 2015, Entergy Texas filed a rate case that included pro forma adjustments to reflect the proposed acquisition of Union Power Station Power Block 1, which is one of four units that comprise the Union Power Station near El Dorado, Arkansas. Previously in 2015 Entergy Texas made a filing with the PUCT requesting that it grant a certificate of convenience and necessity for the Union acquisition. In July 2015 the PUCT requested briefing on legal and policy issues related to, among other things, the propriety of rate recovery for the Union Power transaction given the uncertainty of the actual closing date of the transaction and the commencement of the rate year, as well as Entergy Texas’s requirement for acceptable rate treatment as a condition to closing the transaction. Also in July 2015, in connection with the requested briefing, the PUCT staff and certain parties filed briefs concluding that Entergy Texas should not be permitted recovery for the Union Power Station purchase in the rate case. Based on the opposition to the acquisition of the power block, Entergy Texas determined it was appropriate to seek to dismiss the certificate of convenience and necessity filing and withdraw the rate case. In July 2015, Entergy Texas filed its notice of withdrawal of its base rate case and the ALJs in the case dismissed the case from the dockets of the State Office of Administrative Hearings and the PUCT. In the third quarter 2015, Entergy Texas wrote off $4.7 million in rate case expenses and acquisition costs related to the proposed Union Power Station acquisition.

Other Filings

In September 2014, Entergy Texas filed for a distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider based on a law that was passed in 2011 allowing for the recovery of increases in capital costs associated with distribution plant. Entergy Texas requested collection of approximately $7 million annually from retail customers. The parties reached a unanimous settlement authorizing recovery of $3.6 million annually commencing with usage on and after January 1, 2015. A State Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ issued an order in December 2014 authorizing this recovery on an interim basis and remanded the case to the PUCT. In February 2015 the PUCT entered a final order, making the settlement final and the interim rates permanent. In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed to amend its distribution cost recovery factor rider. Entergy Texas requested an increase in recovery under the rider of $6.5 million, for a total collection of $10.1 million annually from retail customers. In October 2015 intervenors and PUCT staff filed testimony opposing, in part, Entergy Texas’s request. In November 2015 Entergy Texas and the parties filed an unopposed settlement agreement and supporting documents. The settlement established an annual revenue requirement of $8.65 million for the amended DCRF rider, with the resulting rates effective for usage on and after January 1, 2016. The PUCT approved the settlement agreement in February 2016.

In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony was filed in November 2015, with the PUCT staff and other parties proposing various disallowances that would reduce the requested increase. The largest remaining single disallowance is $3.4 million which would impose a load growth adjustment on Entergy Texas’s TCRF rider. A hearing on the merits was held in December 2015. A proposal for decision from the ALJ is expected in first quarter 2016.

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination

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 application, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana identified potential benefits, including enhanced economic and customer diversity, enhanced geographic and supply diversity, and greater administrative efficiency. In the initial proceedings with the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana estimated that the business combination could produce up to $128 million in measurable customer benefits during the first ten years following the transaction’s close including proposed guaranteed customer credits of $97 million in the first nine years.  In April 2015 the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony in the LPSC business combination proceeding. The testimony recommended an extensive set of conditions that would be required in order to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The LPSC staff’s primary concern appeared to be potential shifting in fuel costs between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. In May 2015, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony. After the testimony was filed with the LPSC, the parties engaged in settlement discussions that ultimately led to the execution of an uncontested stipulated settlement (“stipulated settlement”), which was filed with the LPSC in July 2015. Through the stipulated settlement, the parties agreed to terms upon which to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The stipulated settlement, which was either joined, or unopposed, by all parties to the LPSC proceeding, represents a compromise of stakeholder positions and was the result of an extensive period of analysis, discovery, and negotiation. The stipulated settlement provides $107 million in guaranteed customer benefits during the first nine years following the transaction’s close. Additionally, the combined company will honor the 2013 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana rate case settlements, including the commitments that (1) there will be no rate increase for legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers for the 2014 test year, and (2) through the 2016 test year formula rate plan, Entergy Louisiana (as a combined entity) will not raise rates by more than $30 million, net of the $10 million rate increase included in the Entergy Louisiana legacy formula rate plan. The stipulated settlement also describes the process for implementing a fuel-tracking mechanism that is designed to address potential effects arising from the shifting of fuel costs between legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers as a result of the combination of those companies’ fuel adjustment clauses. Specifically, the fuel tracker would reallocate such cost shifts as between legacy customers of the companies on an after-the-fact basis, and the calculation of the fuel tracker will be submitted annually in a compliance filing. The stipulated settlement also provides that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana are permitted to defer certain external costs that were incurred to achieve the business combination’s customer benefits. The deferred amount, which shall not exceed $25 million, will be subject to a prudence review and amortized over a 10-year period. In 2015 deferrals of $16 million for these external costs were recorded. A hearing on the stipulated settlement in the LPSC proceeding was held in July 2015. In August 2015 the LPSC approved the business combination.

In April 2015 the FERC approved applications requesting authorization for the business combination. In August 2015 the NRC approved the applications for the River Bend and Waterford 3 license transfers as part of the steps to complete the business combination.

On October 1, 2015, the businesses formerly conducted by Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana were combined into a single public utility. With the completion of the business combination, Entergy Louisiana holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed the liabilities, of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The combination was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control. The effect of the business combination has been retrospectively applied to Entergy Louisiana's financial statements that are presented in this report. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the customer credits resulting from the business combination.

Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans)

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 supported the provision of service to Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers assets transfer. In May 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement authorizing the Algiers assets transfer and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in May 2015. On September 1, 2015, Entergy Louisiana transferred its Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans for a purchase price of approximately $85 million, subject to closing adjustments. Entergy New Orleans paid Entergy Louisiana $59.6 million, including final true-ups, from available cash and issued a note payable to Entergy Louisiana in the amount of $25.5 million. See Note 1 to the financial statements for a discussion of the accounting for the Algiers asset transfer and the basis of presentation for the Entergy New Orleans’s financial statements presented in this report.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

The Utility operating companies historically have engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which is a rate schedule that has been approved by the FERC.  Certain of the Utility operating companies’ retail regulators and other parties are pursuing litigation involving the System Agreement at the FERC.  The proceedings include challenges to the allocation of costs as defined by the System Agreement and allegations of imprudence by the Utility operating companies in their execution of their obligations under the System Agreement.

In June 2005 the FERC issued a decision in System Agreement litigation that had been commenced by the LPSC, and essentially affirmed its decision in a December 2005 order on rehearing.  The FERC decision concluded, among other things, that:

• The System Agreement no longer roughly equalizes total production costs among the Utility operating companies.

• In order to reach rough production cost equalization, the FERC imposed a bandwidth remedy by which each company’s total annual production costs will have to be within +/- 11% of Entergy System average total annual production costs.

• In calculating the production costs for this purpose under the FERC’s order, output from the Vidalia hydroelectric power plant will not reflect the actual Vidalia price for the year but is priced at that year’s average price paid by Entergy Louisiana for the exchange of electric energy under Service Schedule MSS-3 of the System Agreement, thereby reducing the amount of Vidalia costs reflected in the comparison of the Utility operating companies’ total production costs.

• The remedy ordered by FERC in 2005 required no refunds and became effective based on calendar year 2006 production costs and the first reallocation payments were made in 2007.

The FERC’s decision reallocates total production costs of the Utility operating companies whose relative total production costs expressed as a percentage of Entergy System average production costs are outside an upper or lower bandwidth.  Under the current circumstances, this will be accomplished by payments from Utility operating companies whose production costs are more than 11% below Entergy System average production costs to Utility operating companies whose production costs are more than the Entergy System average production cost, with payments going first to those Utility operating companies whose total production costs are farthest above the Entergy System average.

The financial consequences of the FERC’s decision are determined by the total production cost of each Utility operating company, which are affected by the mix of solid fuel and gas-fired generation available to each company and the costs of natural gas and purchased power.  Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Texas, and Entergy Mississippi are more dependent upon gas-fired generation sources than Entergy Arkansas or Entergy New Orleans.  Of these, Entergy Arkansas is the least dependent upon gas-fired generation sources.  Therefore, increases in natural gas prices generally increased the amount by which Entergy Arkansas’s total production costs were below the Entergy System average production costs.

The LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers appealed the FERC’s December 2005 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  Entergy and the City of New Orleans intervened in the various appeals.  The D.C. Circuit issued its decision in April 2008.  The D.C. Circuit concluded that the FERC’s orders had failed to adequately explain both its conclusion that it was prohibited from ordering refunds for the 20-month period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003 and its determination to implement the bandwidth remedy commencing on January 1, 2006, rather than June 1, 2005.  The D.C. Circuit remanded the case to the FERC for further proceedings on these issues.

In October 2011, the FERC issued an order addressing the D.C. Circuit remand on these two issues.  On the first issue, the FERC concluded that it did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-month period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003.  Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, which is discussed in a separate section below, the FERC concluded that the refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in that proceeding.  On the second issue, the FERC reversed its prior decision and ordered that the prospective bandwidth remedy begin on June 1, 2005 (the date of its initial order in the proceeding) rather than January 1, 2006, as it had previously ordered.  Pursuant to the October 2011 order, Entergy was required to calculate the additional bandwidth payments for the period June - December 2005 utilizing the bandwidth formula tariff prescribed by the FERC that was filed in a December 2006 compliance filing and accepted by the FERC in an April 2007 order.  As is the case with bandwidth remedy payments, these payments and receipts will ultimately be paid by Utility operating company customers to other Utility operating company customers. 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 an 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. In October 2015 the FERC issued three orders related to the commencement of the remedy on June 1, 2005 and the inclusion of interest on the amount for the period June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. Specifically, the FERC rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of its decision to include interest on the amount for the seven-month period. The FERC also rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of the order rejecting the compliance filing with regard to the issue of interest. Finally, the FERC set for hearing and settlement procedures the 2014 compliance filing that included the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. In setting the compliance filing for hearing, the FERC rejected the APSC’s protest that Entergy Arkansas should not be subject to the filing because Entergy Arkansas would be making the payments during a period following its exit from the System Agreement. The hearing on the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 is scheduled to occur in July 2016.

In December 2011, Entergy filed with the FERC its compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s October 2011 order.  The filing shows the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$156
Entergy Louisiana	($75)
Entergy Mississippi	($33)
Entergy New Orleans	($5)
Entergy Texas	($43)

Entergy Arkansas made its payment in January 2012.  In February 2012, Entergy Arkansas filed for an interim adjustment to its production cost allocation rider requesting that the $156 million payment be collected from customers over the 22-month period from March 2012 through December 2013.  In March 2012 the APSC issued an order stating that the payment can be recovered from retail customers through the production cost allocation rider, subject to refund.  The LPSC and the APSC have requested rehearing of the FERC’s October 2011 order.  In December 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for a writ of mandamus at the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In its petition, the LPSC requested that the D.C. Circuit issue an order compelling the FERC to issue a final order on pending rehearing requests. In January 2014 the D.C. Circuit denied the LPSC’s petition. The APSC, the LPSC, the PUCT, and other parties intervened in the December 2011 compliance filing proceeding, and the APSC and the LPSC also filed protests.

In February 2014 the FERC issued a rehearing order addressing its October 2011 order. The FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing on the issues of whether the bandwidth remedy should be made effective earlier than June 1, 2005, and whether refunds should be ordered for the 20-month refund effective period. The FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request on the issue of interest on the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period, requiring that interest be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date those bandwidth payments/receipts are made. Also in February 2014 the FERC issued an order rejecting the December 2011 compliance filing that calculated the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. The FERC order required a new compliance filing that calculates the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period based on monthly data for the seven individual months including interest pursuant to the February 2014 rehearing order. Entergy has sought rehearing of the February 2014 orders with respect to the FERC’s determinations regarding interest. In April 2014 the LPSC filed a petition for review of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The appeal is pending.

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

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$68
Entergy Louisiana	($10)
Entergy Mississippi	($11)
Entergy New Orleans	$2
Entergy Texas	($49)

These payments were made in May 2014. The LPSC, City Council, and APSC have filed protests.

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

Each May since 2007 Entergy has filed with the FERC the rates to implement the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  These filings show the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies are necessary to achieve rough production cost equalization as defined by the FERC’s orders:

	Payments (Receipts)
	2007			2008			2009			2010			2011			2012			2013			2014
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas		$252			$252			$390			$41			$77			$41			$—			$—
Entergy Louisiana		($211	)		($160	)		($247	)		($22	)		($12	)		($41	)		$—			$—
Entergy Mississippi		($41	)		($20	)		($24	)		($19	)		($40	)		$—			$—			$—
Entergy New Orleans		$—			($7	)		$—			$—			($25	)		$—			($15	)		($15	)
Entergy Texas		($30	)		($65	)		($119	)		$—			$—			$—			$15			$15

The Utility operating companies record, as necessary, accounts payable or accounts receivable to reflect the rough production cost equalization payments and receipts required to implement the FERC’s remedy.  When accounts payable are recorded, a corresponding regulatory asset is recorded for the right to collect the payments from customers. When accounts receivable are recorded, a corresponding regulatory liability is recorded for the obligations to pass the receipts on to customers.  As discussed below, no payments and receipts were required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Entergy Arkansas ceased participating in the System Agreement on December 18, 2013 and was not part of the calendar year 2013 or 2014 production costs calculations.

The APSC has approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Texas is recovering its 2013 rough production cost equalization payment over three years beginning April 2014. Entergy Texas included its 2014 rough production cost equalization payment as component of an interim fuel refund made in 2014. Management believes that any changes in the allocation of production costs resulting from the FERC’s decision and related retail proceedings should result in similar rate changes for retail customers, subject to specific circumstances that have caused trapped costs.  

Comprehensive Bandwidth Recalculation for 2007, 2008, and 2009 Rate Filing Proceedings

In July 2014 the FERC issued four orders in connection with various Service Schedule MSS-3 rough production cost equalization formula compliance filings and rehearing requests. Specifically, the FERC accepted Entergy Services’ revised methodologies for calculating certain cost components of the formula and affirmed its prior ruling requiring interest on the true-up amounts. The FERC directed that a comprehensive recalculation of the formula be performed for the filing years 2007, 2008, and 2009 based on calendar years 2006, 2007, and 2008 production costs. In September 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC its compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts, including interest, among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s orders for the 2007, 2008, and 2009 rate filing proceedings. The filing shows the following additional payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$38
Entergy Louisiana	($38)
Entergy Mississippi	$16
Entergy New Orleans	($1)
Entergy Texas	($15)

Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi made the payments in September and October 2014.

The FERC proceedings that resulted from rate filings made in 2007, 2008, and 2009 have been resolved by various orders issued by the FERC and appellate courts. See below for a discussion of rate filings since 2009 and the comprehensive recalculation filing directed by the FERC in the proceeding related to the 2010 rate filing.

2010 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2009 Production Costs

In May 2010, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2010 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding, and supplemented the filing in September 2010.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC and the City Council, which also filed protests.  In July 2010 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2010, subject to refund, and set the proceeding for hearing and settlement procedures.  Settlement procedures have been terminated, and the ALJ scheduled hearings to begin in March 2011.  Subsequently, in January 2011 the ALJ issued an order directing the parties and FERC Staff to show cause why this proceeding should not be stayed pending the issuance of FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review.  In March 2011 the ALJ issued an order placing this proceeding in abeyance. In October 2013 the FERC issued an order granting clarification and denying rehearing with respect to its October 2011 rehearing order in this proceeding. The FERC clarified that in a bandwidth proceeding parties can challenge erroneous inputs, implementation errors, or prudence of cost inputs, but challenges to the bandwidth formula itself must be raised in a Federal Power Act section 206 complaint or section 205 filing. Subsequently in October 2013 the presiding ALJ lifted the stay order holding in abeyance the hearing previously ordered by the FERC and directing that the remaining issues proceed to a hearing on the merits. The hearing was held in March 2014 and the presiding ALJ issued an initial decision in September 2014. Briefs on exception were filed in October 2014. In December 2015 the FERC issued an order affirming the initial decision in part and rejecting the initial decision in part. Among other things, the December 2015 order directs Entergy Services to submit a compliance filing, the results of which may affect the rough production cost equalization filings made for the June - December 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 test periods. In January 2016 the LPSC, the APSC, and Entergy Services filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s December 2015 order. In February 2016, Entergy Services submitted the compliance filing ordered in the December 2015 order.  The result of the true-up payments and receipts for the recalculation of production costs resulted in the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$2
Entergy Louisiana	$6
Entergy Mississippi	($4)
Entergy New Orleans	($1)
Entergy Texas	($3)

2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs

In May 2011, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2011 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest.  In July 2011 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2011, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review. In January 2014 the LPSC filed a petition for a writ of mandamus at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In its petition, the LPSC requested that the Fifth Circuit issue an order compelling the FERC to issue a final order in several proceedings related to the System Agreement, including the 2011 rate filing based on calendar year 2010 production costs and the 2012 and 2013 rate filings discussed below. In March 2014 the Fifth Circuit rejected the LPSC’s petition for a writ of mandamus. In December 2014 the FERC rescinded its earlier abeyance order and consolidated the 2011 rate filing with the 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs

In May 2012, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2012 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest.  In August 2012 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 2012, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review. In December 2014 the FERC rescinded its earlier abeyance order and consolidated the 2012 rate filing with the 2011, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs

In May 2013, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2013 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest. The City Council intervened and filed comments related to including the outcome of a related FERC proceeding in the 2013 cost equalization calculation. In August 2013 the FERC issued an order accepting the 2013 rates, effective June 1, 2013, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review. In December 2014 the FERC rescinded its earlier abeyance order and consolidated the 2013 Rate Filing with the 2011, 2012, and 2014 Rate Filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs

In May 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2014 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest. The City Council intervened and filed comments. In December 2014 the FERC issued an order accepting the 2014 rates, effective June 1, 2014, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and consolidated the 2014 Rate Filing with the 2011, 2012, and 2013 Rate Filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

Consolidated 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Rate Filing Proceedings

As discussed above, in December 2014 the FERC consolidated the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. 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. In July 2015 the parties filed direct and answering testimony. Among other issues with the pending bandwidth calculations, the LPSC challenged the administration of the accounting for joint account sales of energy in the intra-system bill. In August and September 2015 the parties filed additional rounds of testimony in the consolidated hearing for the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings. In October 2015 the LPSC withdrew its testimony challenging the accounting for joint account sales of energy. The hearings occurred in November 2015, and an initial decision from the ALJ is expected in July 2016.

2015 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2014 Production Costs

In May 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2015 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing showed that no payments and receipts were required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC and City Council intervened and filed comments. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2015 rates for filing, suspended them for a nominal period, to become effective June 1, 2015, as requested, subject to refund, and set them for hearing and settlement judge procedures.

Calendar Year 2015 Production Costs

Entergy preliminarily estimates that no payments and receipts are required in 2016 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2015 production costs. The actual payments/receipts for 2016, based on calendar year 2015 production costs, will not be calculated until the Utility operating companies’ 2015 FERC Form 1s have been filed. Once the calculation is completed, it will be filed at the FERC. The level of any payments and receipts is significantly affected by a number of factors, including, among others, weather, the price of alternative fuels, the operating characteristics of the Entergy System generating fleet, and multiple factors affecting the calculation of the non-fuel related revenue requirement components of the total production costs, such as plant investment. The calculation based on 2015 production costs will be the last rough production cost equalization filing submitted by the Utility operating companies because the System Agreement will terminate at the end of August 2016.

Utility Operating Company Termination of System Agreement Participation

Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi ceased participating in the System Agreement effective December 18, 2013 and November 7, 2015, respectively. Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas will terminate participation in the System Agreement on August 31, 2016, which will result in the termination of the System Agreement in its entirety pursuant to a settlement agreement approved by the FERC in December 2015.

In connection with the System Agreement termination settlement agreement, it was determined that the purchase power agreements, referred to as the jurisdictional separation plan PPAs, between Entergy Texas and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana that were put in place for certain legacy gas units at the time of Entergy Gulf States’s separation into Entergy Texas and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana will terminate effective with System Agreement termination. Similarly, the PPA between Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Texas for the Calcasieu unit also will terminate. Currently, the jurisdictional separation plan PPAs are the means by which Entergy Texas receives payment for its receivable associated with Entergy Louisiana’s Spindletop gas storage facility regulatory asset. As a result of the System Agreement termination settlement agreement, effective with the termination date, Entergy Texas will no longer receive payments from Entergy Louisiana related to the Spindletop storage facility which resulted in a write-off recorded in 2015 by Entergy Texas of $23.5 million ($15.3 million net-of-tax).

Interruptible Load Proceeding

In April 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in the LPSC’s appeal of the FERC’s March 2004 and April 2005 orders related to the treatment under the System Agreement of the Utility operating companies’ interruptible loads.  In its opinion the D.C. Circuit concluded that the FERC (1) acted arbitrarily and capriciously by allowing the Utility operating companies to phase-in the effects of the elimination of the interruptible load over a 12-month period of time; (2) failed to adequately explain why refunds could not be ordered under Section 206(c) of the Federal Power Act; and (3) exercised appropriately its discretion to defer addressing the cost of sulfur dioxide allowances until a later time.  The D.C. Circuit remanded the matter to the FERC for a more considered determination on the issue of refunds.  The FERC issued its order on remand in September 2007, in which it directed Entergy to make a compliance filing removing all interruptible load from the computation of peak load responsibility commencing April 1, 2004 and to issue any necessary refunds to reflect this change.  In addition, the order directed the Utility operating companies to make refunds for the period May 1995 through July 1996.  In November 2007 the Utility operating companies filed a refund report describing the refunds to be issued pursuant to the FERC’s orders.  The LPSC filed a protest to the refund report in December 2007, and the Utility operating companies filed an answer to the protest in January 2008.  The refunds were made in October 2008 by the Utility operating companies that owed refunds to the Utility operating companies that were due a refund under the decision.  The APSC and the Utility operating companies appealed the FERC decisions to the D.C. Circuit.   

Following the filing of petitioners’ initial briefs, the FERC filed a motion requesting the D.C. Circuit hold the appeal of the FERC’s decisions ordering refunds in the interruptible load proceeding in abeyance and remand the record to the FERC.  The D.C. Circuit granted the FERC’s unopposed motion in June 2009.  In December 2009 the FERC established a paper hearing to determine whether the FERC had the authority and, if so, whether it would be appropriate to order refunds resulting from changes in the treatment of interruptible load in the allocation of capacity costs by the Utility operating companies.  In August 2010 the FERC issued an order stating that it has the authority and refunds are appropriate.  The APSC, MPSC, and Entergy requested rehearing of the FERC’s decision.  In June 2011 the FERC issued an order granting rehearing in part and denying rehearing in part, in which the FERC determined to invoke its discretion to deny refunds.  The FERC held that in this case where “the Entergy system as a whole collected the proper level of revenue, but, as was later established, incorrectly allocated peak load responsibility among the various Entergy operating companies….the Commission will apply here our usual practice in such cases, invoking our equitable discretion to not order refunds, notwithstanding our authority to do so.”  The LPSC has requested rehearing of the FERC’s June 2011 decision.  In July 2011 the refunds made in the fourth quarter 2009 described above were reversed. In October 2011 the FERC issued an “Order Establishing Paper Hearing” inviting parties that oppose refunds to file briefs within 30 days addressing the LPSC’s argument that FERC precedent supports refunds under the circumstances present in this proceeding.  Parties that favor refunds were then invited to file reply briefs within 21 days of the date that the initial briefs are due.  Briefs were submitted and the matter is pending.

In September 2010 the FERC had issued an order setting the refund report filed in the proceeding in November 2007 for hearing and settlement judge procedures.  In May 2011, Entergy filed a settlement agreement that resolved all issues relating to the refund report set for hearing.  In June 2011 the settlement judge certified the settlement as uncontested and the settlement agreement is currently pending before the FERC.  In July 2011, Entergy filed an amended/corrected refund report and a motion to defer action on the settlement agreement until after the FERC rules on the LPSC’s rehearing request regarding the June 2011 decision denying refunds.

Prior to the FERC’s June 2011 order on rehearing, Entergy Arkansas filed an application in November 2010 with the APSC for recovery of the refund that it paid.  The APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s application, and also denied Entergy Arkansas’s petition for rehearing.  If the FERC were to order Entergy Arkansas to pay refunds on rehearing in the interruptible load proceeding the APSC’s decision would trap FERC-approved costs at Entergy Arkansas with no regulatory-approved mechanism to recover them.  In August 2011, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas asking for a declaratory judgment that the rejection of Entergy Arkansas’s application by the APSC is preempted by the Federal Power Act.  The APSC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  In April 2012 the United States district court dismissed Entergy Arkansas’s complaint without prejudice stating that Entergy Arkansas’s claim is not ripe for adjudication and that Entergy Arkansas did not have standing to bring suit at this time.

In March 2013 the FERC issued an order denying the LPSC’s request for rehearing of the FERC’s June 2011 order wherein the FERC concluded it would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in the interruptible load proceeding. Based on its review of the LPSC’s request for rehearing and the briefs filed as part of the paper hearing established in October 2011, the FERC affirmed its earlier ruling and declined to order refunds under the circumstances of the case. 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 the proceeding. Oral argument was held on the appeal in the D.C. Circuit in September 2014. 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. The matter is pending.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

In June 2009, the LPSC filed a complaint requesting that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocate the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibits sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies.   The LPSC’s complaint challenges sales made beginning in 2002 and requests refunds.  In July 2009 the Utility operating companies filed a response to the complaint requesting that the FERC dismiss the complaint on the merits without hearing because the LPSC has failed to meet its burden of showing any violation of the System Agreement and failed to produce any evidence of imprudent action by the Entergy System.  In their response, the Utility operating companies explained that the System Agreement clearly contemplates that the Utility operating companies may make sales to third parties for their own account, subject to the requirement that those sales be included in the load (or load shape) for the applicable Utility operating company.  The response further explained that the FERC already had determined that Entergy Arkansas’s short-term wholesale sales did not trigger the “right-of-first-refusal” provision of the System Agreement.  While the D.C. Circuit recently determined that the “right-of-first-refusal” issue was not properly before the FERC at the time of its earlier decision on the issue, the LPSC raised no additional claims or facts that would warrant the FERC reaching a different conclusion.

The LPSC filed direct testimony in the proceeding alleging, among other things, (1) that Entergy violated the System Agreement by permitting Entergy Arkansas to make non-requirements sales to non-affiliated third parties rather than making such energy available to the other Utility operating companies’ customers; and (2) that over the period 2000 - 2009, these non-requirements sales caused harm to the Utility operating companies’ customers and these customers should be compensated for this harm by Entergy.  In subsequent testimony, the LPSC modified its original damages claim in favor of quantifying damages by re-running intra-system bills.  The Utility operating companies believe the LPSC’s allegations are without merit.  A hearing in the matter was held in August 2010.

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

The FERC issued a decision in June 2012 and held that, while the System Agreement is ambiguous, it does provide authority for individual Utility operating companies to make opportunity sales for their own account and Entergy Arkansas made and priced these sales in good faith.  The FERC found, however, that the System Agreement does not provide authority for an individual Utility operating company to allocate the energy associated with such opportunity sales as part of its load, but provides a different allocation authority.  The FERC further found that the after-the-fact accounting methodology used to allocate the energy used to supply the sales was inconsistent with the System Agreement.  Quantifying the effect of the FERC’s decision will require re-running intra-system bills for a ten-year period, and the FERC in its decision established further hearing procedures to determine the calculation of the effects.  In July 2012, Entergy and the LPSC filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s June 2012 decision, which are pending with the FERC.

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

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

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy Arkansas

Entergy Arkansas December 2012 Winter Storm

In December 2012 a severe winter storm consisting of ice, snow, and high winds caused significant damage to Entergy Arkansas’s distribution lines, equipment, poles, and other facilities.  Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Arkansas’s electrical facilities in areas damaged from the winter storm were $63 million, including costs recorded as regulatory assets of approximately $22 million.  In the Entergy Arkansas 2013 rate case, the APSC approved inclusion of the construction spending in rate base and approved an increase in the normal storm cost accrual.

Entergy Louisiana

Hurricane Isaac

In August 2012, Hurricane Isaac caused extensive damage to portions of Entergy’s service area in Louisiana, and to a lesser extent in Mississippi and Arkansas.  The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages.  In January 2013, Entergy Louisiana drew $252 million, from its funded storm reserve escrow accounts.  In April 2013, Entergy Louisiana filed a joint application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs.  Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested that the LPSC determine the amount of such costs that were prudently incurred and are, thus, eligible for recovery from customers.  Including carrying costs and additional storm escrow funds for prior storms, Entergy Louisiana requested an LPSC determination that $321.5 million in system restoration costs were prudently incurred. In May 2013, Entergy Louisiana, and the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation (LURC), an instrumentality of the State of Louisiana, filed with the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant financing orders authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Act 55 of the Louisiana Regular Session of 2007 (Louisiana Act 55). The LPSC Staff filed direct testimony in September 2013 concluding that Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs incurred by Entergy Louisiana were reasonable and prudent, subject to proposed minor adjustments which totaled approximately 1% of the company’s costs. Following an evidentiary hearing and recommendations by the ALJ, the LPSC voted in June 2014 to approve a series of orders which (i) quantify the amount of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs prudently incurred ($290.8 million for Entergy Louisiana); (ii) determine the level of storm reserves to be re-established ($290 million for Entergy Louisiana); (iii) authorize Entergy Louisiana to utilize Louisiana Act 55 financing for Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs; and (iv) grant other requested relief associated with storm reserves and Act 55 financing of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs.  Entergy Louisiana committed to pass on to customers a minimum of $30.8 million of customer benefits through annual customer credits of approximately $6.2 million for five years. Approvals for the Act 55 financings were obtained from the LURC and the Louisiana State Bond Commission.

In July 2014, Entergy Louisiana issued two series totaling $300 million of 3.78% Series first mortgage bonds due April 2025. Entergy Louisiana used the proceeds to re-establish and replenish its storm damage escrow reserves and for general corporate purposes.

In August 2014 the Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority (LCDA) issued $314.85 million in bonds under Louisiana Act 55.  From the $309 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LCDA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $16 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $293 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  Entergy Louisiana used the $293 million received from the LURC to acquire 2,935,152.69 Class C preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy, that carry a 7.5% annual distribution rate. Distributions are payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2014, and the membership interests have a liquidation price of $100 per unit. The preferred membership interests are callable at the option of Entergy Holdings Company LLC after ten years under the terms of the LLC agreement. The terms of the membership interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Holdings Company LLC is subject, including the requirement to maintain a net worth of at least $1.75 billion.

Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LCDA and there is no recourse against Entergy or Entergy Louisiana in the event of a bond default.  To service the bonds, Entergy Louisiana collect a system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC, and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee.  Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as the billing and collection agent for the state.

Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike

In September 2008, Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike caused catastrophic damage to Entergy’s service territory.  Entergy Louisiana filed its Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike storm cost recovery case with the LPSC in May 2009.  In September 2009, Entergy Louisiana and the LURC filed with the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant financing orders authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55. Entergy Louisiana’s Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita storm costs were financed primarily by Louisiana Act 55 financing, as discussed below.  Entergy Louisiana also filed an application requesting LPSC approval for ancillary issues including the mechanism to flow charges and Louisiana Act 55 financing savings to customers via a Storm Cost Offset rider.

In December 2009, Entergy Louisiana entered into a stipulation agreement with the LPSC Staff that provides for total recoverable costs of approximately $628 million, including carrying costs.  Under this stipulation, Entergy Louisiana agrees not to recover $11.6 million of its storm restoration spending.  The stipulation also permits replenishing Entergy Louisiana’s storm reserve in the amount of $290 million when the Act 55 financings are accomplished.  In March and April 2010, Entergy Louisiana and other parties to the proceeding filed with the LPSC an uncontested stipulated settlement that includes these terms and also includes Entergy Louisiana’s proposal under the Act 55 financings, which includes a commitment to pass on to customers a minimum of $43.3 million of customer benefits through a prospective annual rate reduction of $8.7 million for five years.  A stipulation hearing was held before the ALJ on April 13, 2010.  On April 21, 2010, the LPSC approved the settlement and subsequently issued financing orders and a ratemaking order intended to facilitate the implementation of the Act 55 financings.  In June 2010 the Louisiana State Bond Commission approved the Act 55 financing.

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

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

Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita

In August and September 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused catastrophic damage to large portions of the Utility’s service territories in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, including the effect of extensive flooding that resulted from levee breaks in and around the greater New Orleans area.  The storms and flooding resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to electric distribution, transmission, and generation and gas infrastructure, and the loss of sales and customers due to mandatory evacuations and the destruction of homes and businesses.

In March 2008, Entergy Louisiana and the LURC filed at the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant a financing order authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55.  The Louisiana Act 55 financing is expected to produce additional customer benefits as compared to traditional securitization.  Entergy Louisiana also filed an application requesting LPSC approval for ancillary issues including the mechanism to flow charges and savings to customers via a Storm Cost Offset rider.  On April 8, 2008, the Louisiana Public Facilities Authority (LPFA), which is the issuer of the bonds pursuant to the Act 55 financing, approved requests for the Act 55 financing.  On April 10, 2008, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC Staff filed with the LPSC an uncontested stipulated settlement that includes Entergy Louisiana’s proposal under the Act 55 financing, which includes a commitment to pass on to customers a minimum of $40 million of customer benefits through a prospective annual rate reduction of $8 million for five years.  On April 16, 2008, the LPSC approved the settlement and issued two financing orders and one ratemaking order intended to facilitate implementation of the Act 55 financing.  In May 2008 the Louisiana State Bond Commission granted final approval of the Act 55 financing.

In July 2008, the LPFA issued $687.7 million in bonds under the aforementioned Act 55.  From the $679 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LPFA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $152 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $527 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Louisiana invested $545 million, including $17.8 million that was withdrawn from the restricted escrow account as approved by the April 16, 2008 LPSC orders, in exchange for 5,449,861.85 Class A preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy, that carry a 10% annual distribution rate.  In August 2008, the LPFA issued $278.4 million in bonds under the aforementioned Act 55.  From the $274.7 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LPFA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $87 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $187.7 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Louisiana invested $189.4 million, including $1.7 million that was withdrawn from the restricted escrow account as approved by the April 16, 2008 LPSC orders, in exchange for 1,893,918.39 Class A preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC that carry a 10% annual distribution rate.  Distributions are payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2008 and have a liquidation price of $100 per unit.  The preferred membership interests are callable at the option of Entergy Holdings Company LLC after ten years under the terms of the LLC agreement.  The terms of the membership interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Holdings Company LLC is subject, including the requirement to maintain a net worth of at least $1 billion.  In February 2012, Entergy Louisiana sold 500,000 of its Class A preferred membership units in Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a wholly-owned Entergy subsidiary, to a third party in exchange for $51 million plus accrued but unpaid distributions on the units.  The 500,000 preferred membership units are mandatorily redeemable in January 2112.

Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LPFA, and there is no recourse against Entergy or Entergy Louisiana in the event of a bond default.  To service the bonds, Entergy Louisiana collect a system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC, and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee.  Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as the billing and collection agent for the state.

Entergy Mississippi

On July 1, 2013, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation, wherein both parties agreed that approximately $32 million in storm restoration costs incurred in 2011 and 2012 were prudently incurred and chargeable to the storm damage provision, while approximately $700,000 in prudently incurred costs were more properly recoverable through the formula rate plan. Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff also agreed that the storm damage accrual should be increased from $750,000 per month to $1.75 million per month. In September 2013 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with the increase in the storm damage accrual effective with October 2013 bills. In February 2015, Entergy Mississippi provided notice to the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff that the storm damage accrual would be set to zero effective with the March 2015 billing cycle as a result of Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage accrual balance exceeding $15 million as of January 31, 2015, but will return to its current level when the storm damage accrual balance becomes less than $10 million.

Entergy New Orleans

In October 2006 the City Council approved a rate filing settlement agreement that, among other things, authorized a $75 million storm reserve for damage from future storms, which will be created over a ten-year period through a storm reserve rider that began in March 2007.  These storm reserve funds are held in a restricted escrow account until needed in response to a storm.  

In August 2012, Hurricane Isaac caused extensive damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy New Orleans’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Isaac were $47.3 million. Entergy New Orleans withdrew $17.4 million from the storm reserve escrow account to partially offset these costs. In February 2014, Entergy New Orleans made a filing with the City Council seeking certification of the Hurricane Isaac costs. In January 2015 the City Council issued a resolution approving the terms of a joint agreement in principle filed by Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Louisiana, and the City Council Advisors determining, among other things, that Entergy New Orleans’s prudently-incurred storm recovery costs were $49.3 million, of which $31.7 million, net of reimbursements from the storm reserve escrow account, remains recoverable from Entergy New Orleans’s electric customers. The resolution also directs Entergy New Orleans to file an application to securitize the unrecovered Council-approved storm recovery costs of $31.7 million pursuant to the Louisiana Electric Utility Storm Recovery Securitization Act (Louisiana Act 64). In addition, the resolution found that it is reasonable for Entergy New Orleans to include in the principal amount of its potential securitization the costs to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve in an amount that achieves the Council-approved funding level of $75 million. In January 2015, in compliance with that directive, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the financing of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. 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. In May 2015 the parties entered into an agreement in principle and the City Council issued a financing order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to issue storm recovery bonds in the aggregate amount of $98.7 million, including $31.8 million for recovery of Entergy New Orleans’s Hurricane Isaac storm recovery costs, including carrying costs, $63.9 million to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve, and approximately $3 million for estimated up-front financing costs associated with the securitization. See Note 5 to the financial statements for discussion of the issuance of the securitization bonds in July 2015.

New Nuclear Generation Development Costs

Entergy Louisiana

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana were developing a project option for new nuclear generation at River Bend.  In March 2010, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC seeking approval to continue the limited development activities necessary to preserve an option to construct a new unit at River Bend.  At its June 2012 meeting the LPSC voted to uphold an ALJ recommendation that the request of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana be declined on the basis that the LPSC’s rule on new nuclear development does not apply to activities to preserve an option to develop and on the further grounds that the companies improperly engaged in advanced preparation activities prior to certification.  The LPSC directed that Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana be permitted to seek recovery of these costs in their upcoming rate case filings that were subsequently filed in February 2013. In the resolution of the rate case proceeding the LPSC provided for an eight-year amortization of costs incurred in connection with the potential development of new nuclear generation at River Bend, without carrying costs, beginning in December 2014, provided, however, that amortization of these costs shall not result in a future rate increase. As of December 31, 2015, Entergy Louisiana has a regulatory asset of $50.4 million on its balance sheet related to these new nuclear generation development costs.

Entergy Mississippi

Pursuant to the Mississippi Baseload Act and the Mississippi Public Utilities Act, Entergy Mississippi had been developing and preserving a project option for new nuclear generation at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station.  In October 2010, Entergy Mississippi filed an application with the MPSC requesting that the MPSC determine that it was in the public interest to preserve the option to construct new nuclear generation at Grand Gulf and that the MPSC approve the deferral of Entergy Mississippi’s costs incurred to date and in the future related to this project, including the accrual of AFUDC or similar carrying charges.  In October 2011, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed with the MPSC a joint stipulation that the MPSC approved in November 2011.  The stipulation stated that there should be a deferral of the $57 million of costs incurred through September 2011 in connection with planning, evaluation, monitoring, and other and related generation resource development activities for new nuclear generation at Grand Gulf.  

In October 2014, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into and filed joint stipulations in Entergy Mississippi’s general rate case proceeding, which are discussed above. In consideration of the comprehensive terms for settlement in that rate case proceeding, the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff and Entergy Mississippi agreed that Entergy Mississippi would request consolidation of the new nuclear generation development costs proceeding with the rate case proceeding for hearing purposes and will not further pursue, except as noted below, recovery of the costs deferred by MPSC order in the new nuclear generation development docket. The stipulations state, however, that, if Entergy Mississippi decides to move forward with nuclear development in Mississippi, it can at that time re-present for consideration by the MPSC only those costs directly associated with the existing early site permit (ESP), to the extent that the costs are verifiable and prudent and the ESP is still valid and relevant to any such option pursued. After considering the progress of the new nuclear generation costs proceeding in light of the joint stipulations, Entergy Mississippi recorded in 2014 a $56.2 million pre-tax charge to recognize that the regulatory asset associated with new nuclear generation development is no longer probable of recovery. In December 2014 the MPSC issued an order accepting in their entirety the October 2014 stipulations, including the findings and terms of the stipulations regarding new nuclear generation development costs.

Texas Power Price Lawsuit

In August 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the district court of Chambers County, Texas by Texas residents on behalf of a purported class of the Texas retail customers of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. who were billed and paid for electric power from January 1, 1994 to the present.  The named defendants include Entergy Corporation, Entergy Services, Entergy Power, Entergy Power Marketing Corp., and Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Gulf States, Inc. was not a named defendant, but was alleged to be a co-conspirator.  The court granted the request of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. to intervene in the lawsuit to protect its interests.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a “price gouging accounting scheme” to sell to plaintiffs and similarly situated utility customers higher priced power generated by the defendants while rejecting less expensive power offered from off-system suppliers.  In particular, plaintiffs allege that the defendants manipulated and continue to manipulate the dispatch of generation so that power is purchased from affiliated expensive resources instead of buying cheaper off-system power.

Plaintiffs stated in their pleadings that customers in Texas were charged at least $57 million above prevailing market prices for power.  Plaintiffs seek actual, consequential and exemplary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees, and disgorgement of profits.  The plaintiffs’ experts have tendered a report calculating damages in a large range, from $153 million to $972 million in present value, under various scenarios as of the date of the report.  The Entergy defendants have tendered expert reports challenging the assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions of the plaintiffs’ expert reports.

In March 2012 the state district court found that the case met the requirements to be maintained as a class action under Texas law.  In April 2012 the court entered an order certifying the class.  The defendants appealed the order to the Texas Court of Appeals – First District and oral argument was held in May 2013. In November 2014 the Texas Court of Appeals - First District reversed the state district court’s class certification order and dismissed the case holding that the state district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to address the issues. Plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing and a motion for rehearing en banc. 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. In July 2015 the Court of Appeals issued a new opinion again finding that the plaintiffs’ claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC and, therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The Court of Appeals ordered that the state district court dismiss all claims against the Entergy defendants. In September 2015 plaintiffs filed a petition for review at the Supreme Court of Texas. At the request of the Court, the Entergy defendants filed a response in December 2015. In January 2016 the Supreme Court of Texas issued an order requiring the parties to file briefs on the merits.

Entergy Arkansas [Member]

Rate And Regulatory Matters

RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities

Regulatory assets represent probable future revenues associated with costs that Entergy expects to recover from customers through the regulatory ratemaking process under which the Utility business operates. Regulatory liabilities represent probable future reductions in revenues associated with amounts that Entergy expects to benefit customers through the regulatory ratemaking process under which the Utility business operates. In addition to the regulatory assets and liabilities that are specifically disclosed on the face of the balance sheets, the tables below provide detail of “Other regulatory assets” and “Other regulatory liabilities” that are included on Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and 2014:

Other Regulatory Assets

Entergy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$2,574.9		$2,798.8
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 – Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators) (Note 5 - Entergy Arkansas Securitization Bonds)	717.8		736.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	589.1		513.8
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	273.3		245.1
Little Gypsy costs – recovered through securitization (Note 5 – Entergy Louisiana Securitization Bonds - Little Gypsy)	121.1		139.2
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	66.7		76.2
Transition to competition costs - recovered over a 15-year period through February 2021	57.4		66.2
New nuclear generation development costs (Note 2 - New Nuclear Generation Development Costs) (c)	51.1		58.4
MISO implementation costs - recovery through retail rate riders (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	49.4		69.6
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined by retail regulators	32.2		54.7
Human capital management costs - recovery through retail rate mechanisms (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	28.3		42.3
Other	143.5		168.1
Entergy Total		$4,704.8		$4,968.6

Entergy Arkansas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$766.5		$838.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	288.0		254.8
Storm damage costs - recovered either through securitization or retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators) (Note 5 - Entergy Arkansas Securitization Bonds)	97.2		125.6
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	85.7		59.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	23.0		26.2
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	18.1		23.3
MISO implementation costs - recovery through retail rates through 2018 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (c)	17.5		25.1
Human capital management costs - recovery through retail rates through June 2017 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (c)	10.4		17.3
Lake Catherine 4 reliability and sustainability cost deferral - recovery expected through retail rates (c)	10.4		2.4
Incremental ice storm costs - recovered through 2032	8.4		9.0
Other	8.6		10.4
Entergy Arkansas Total		$1,333.8		$1,391.3

Entergy Louisiana

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$718.7		$774.0
Asset Retirement Obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	180.8		167.5
Little Gypsy costs – recovered through securitization (Note 5 – Entergy Louisiana Securitization Bonds - Little Gypsy)	119.2		139.2
New nuclear generation development costs - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2014 through November 2022 (Note 2 - New Nuclear Generation Development Costs) (c)	50.4		58.4
MISO implementation costs - recovery through the MISO cost recovery mechanism beginning December 2014 through November 2017 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	26.6		37.1
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	19.2		21.1
Human capital management costs - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2014 through November 2017 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	17.6		25.0
River Bend AFUDC - recovered through August 2025 (Note 1 – River Bend AFUDC)	16.7		18.6
Business combination external costs deferral - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2015 through November 2025 (c)	16.1		—
MISO integration deferral - recovery through the MISO cost recovery mechanism beginning December 2014 through November 2017	14.5		23.3
Gas hedging costs - recovered through fuel rates (Note 16 - Derivatives)	7.0		15.8
Spindletop gas storage facility - recovery period through August 2016 (a) (Note 2 - System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings)	1.1		26.2
Other	30.0		34.4
Entergy Louisiana Total		$1,217.9		$1,340.6

Entergy Mississippi

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$216.1		$224.3
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	77.5		76.3
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	7.6		27.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	7.1		8.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	6.7		6.3
Baxter Wilson outage costs - recovered through retail rates over two years beginning February 2015 (Note 8 - Baxter Wilson Plant Event)	3.2		6.0
MISO implementation costs - recovery through retail rate riders (Note 2 – Retail Rate Proceedings)	2.7		4.0
Other	7.8		12.6
Entergy Mississippi Total		$328.7		$364.7

Entergy New Orleans

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through retail rates and securitization (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators)		$104.0		$18.5
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)	103.7		115.8
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	29.4		35.2
Michoud plant maintenance – recovered over a 7-year period through September 2018	5.2		7.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	4.0		3.8
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined monthly or annually	3.1		0.4
Rate case costs - recovered through retail rates (c)	3.2		3.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	1.6		1.8
Other	11.1		9.2
Entergy New Orleans Total		$265.3		$194.9

Entergy Texas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators)		$516.2		$591.7
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)	193.6		217.0
Transition to competition costs - recovered over a 15-year period through February 2021	57.4		66.2
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	25.8		18.9
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	9.4		10.5
Rate case costs -recovered through retail rates (c)	3.8		8.4
Other	6.7		9.4
Entergy Texas Total		$812.9		$922.1

System Energy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans and Other Postretirement Benefits) (b)		$178.0		$191.0
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (b)	108.6		80.4
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	54.8		55.7
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	6.4		8.5
System Energy Total		$347.8		$335.6

(a) The jurisdictional split order assigned the regulatory asset to Entergy Texas.  The regulatory asset, however, is being recovered and amortized at Entergy Louisiana.  As a result, a billing occurs monthly over the same term as the recovery and receipts will be submitted to Entergy Texas.  Entergy Texas has recorded a receivable from Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana has recorded a corresponding payable.

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

(c) Does not earn a return on investment.

Other Regulatory Liabilities

Entergy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)		$611.7		$656.7
Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8)	222.6		242.8
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation (Note 2)	156.0		156.0
Business combination guaranteed customer benefits - returned to customers through retail rates and fuel rates beginning December 2015 through November 2024 (Note 2 - Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination)	105.2		—
Removal costs - returned to customers through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)	68.3		82.7
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback - (Note 10 - Sale and Leaseback Transactions)	67.9		79.5
Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - amortized and credited through the UPSA	46.4		53.6
Entergy Arkansas’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and FERC	44.4		44.4
Waterford 3 replacement steam generator provision (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	31.7		—
Asset retirement obligation - will be returned to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)	28.2		27.7
Other	32.5		40.2
Entergy Total		$1,414.9		$1,383.6

Entergy Arkansas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)		$236.1		$254.0
Other	6.8		—
Entergy Arkansas Total		$242.9		$254.0

Entergy Louisiana

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8)		$222.6		$242.8
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)	196.9		209.1
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation (Note 2)	156.0		156.0
Business combination guaranteed customer benefits - returned to customers through retail rates and fuel rates beginning December 2015 through November 2024 (Note 2 - Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination)	105.2		—
Removal costs - returned to customers through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)	68.3		82.6
Waterford 3 replacement steam generator provision (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	31.7		—
Asset Retirement Obligation - will be returned to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)	28.2		27.7
Other	9.7		4.2
Entergy Louisiana Total		$818.6		$722.4

Entergy Texas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Transition to competition costs - returned to customers through rate riders when rates are redetermined periodically		$6.4		$5.1
Entergy Texas Total		$6.4		$5.1

System Energy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)		$178.7		$193.6
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback - (Note 10 - Sale and Leaseback Transactions)	67.9		79.5
Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - amortized and credited through the UPSA	46.4		53.6
Entergy Arkansas’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and FERC	44.4		44.4
System Energy Total		$337.4		$371.1

(a) Offset by related asset.

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas are allowed to recover fuel and purchased power costs through fuel mechanisms included in electric and gas rates that are recorded as fuel cost recovery revenues.  The difference between revenues collected and the current fuel and purchased power costs is generally recorded as “Deferred fuel costs” on the Utility operating companies’ financial statements.  The table below shows the amount of deferred fuel costs as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 that Entergy expects to recover (or return to customers) through fuel mechanisms, subject to subsequent regulatory review.

	2015			2014
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas (a)		$57.8			$209.2
Entergy Louisiana (b)		$102.9			$107.1
Entergy Mississippi		($107.8	)		($2.2	)
Entergy New Orleans (b)		($24.9	)		($25.1	)
Entergy Texas		($25.1	)		$11.9

(a) 2015 and 2014 include respectively $66.7 million and $65.9 million for Entergy Arkansas of fuel, purchased power, and capacity costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

(b) 2015 and 2014 include $168.1 million for Entergy Louisiana and $4.1 million for Entergy New Orleans of fuel, purchased power, and capacity costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

Entergy Arkansas

Production Cost Allocation Rider

The APSC approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas as a result of the System Agreement proceedings, which are discussed in the “System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings” section below.  These costs cause an increase in Entergy Arkansas’s deferred fuel cost balance because Entergy Arkansas pays the costs over seven months but collects them from customers over twelve months.

In May 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider to recover the $3 million unrecovered retail balance as of December 31, 2013 and the $67.8 million System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment made in May 2014 as a result of the compliance filing pursuant to the FERC’s February 2014 orders related to the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. In June 2014 the APSC suspended the annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider and scheduled a hearing in September 2014. Upon a joint motion of the parties, the APSC canceled the September 2014 hearing and in January 2015 the APSC issued an order approving Entergy Arkansas’s request for recovery of the $3 million under-recovered amount based on the true-up of the production cost allocation rider and the $67.8 million May 2014 System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment subject to refund with interest, with recovery of these payments concluding with the last billing cycle in December 2015. The APSC also found that Entergy Arkansas is entitled to carrying charges pursuant to the current terms of the production cost allocation rider. Entergy Arkansas made its compliance filing pursuant to the order in January 2015 and the APSC issued its approval order, also in January 2015. The redetermined rate went into effect the first billing cycle of February 2015.

In May 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider, which included a $38 million payment made by Entergy Arkansas as a result of the FERC’s February 2014 order related to the comprehensive bandwidth recalculation for calendar year 2006, 2007, and 2008 production costs. The redetermined rate for the 2015 production cost allocation rider update was added to the redetermined rate from the 2014 production cost allocation rider update and the combined rate was effective with the first billing cycle of July 2015. This combined rate was effective through December 2015. The collection of the remainder of the redetermined rate for the 2015 production cost allocation rider update will continue through June 2016.

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

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

In October 2005 the APSC initiated an investigation into Entergy Arkansas’s interim energy cost recovery rate.  The investigation focused on Entergy Arkansas’s 1) gas contracting, portfolio, and hedging practices; 2) wholesale purchases during the period; 3) management of the coal inventory at its coal generation plants; and 4) response to the contractual failure of the railroads to provide coal deliveries.  In March 2006 the APSC extended its investigation to cover the costs included in Entergy Arkansas’s March 2006 annual energy cost rate filing, and a hearing was held in the APSC investigation in October 2006.

In January 2007 the APSC issued an order in its review of the energy cost rate.  The APSC found that Entergy Arkansas failed to maintain an adequate coal inventory level going into the summer of 2005 and that Entergy Arkansas should be responsible for any incremental energy costs that resulted from two outages caused by employee and contractor error.  The coal plant generation curtailments were caused by railroad delivery problems and Entergy Arkansas resolved litigation with the railroad regarding the delivery problems.  The APSC staff was directed to perform an analysis with Entergy Arkansas’s assistance to determine the additional fuel and purchased energy costs associated with these findings and file the analysis within sixty days of the order.  After a final determination of the costs is made by the APSC, Entergy Arkansas will be directed to refund that amount with interest to its customers as a credit on the energy cost recovery rider.  Entergy Arkansas requested rehearing of the order.

In February 2010 the APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s request for rehearing, and held a hearing in September 2010 to determine the amount of damages, if any, that should be assessed against Entergy Arkansas.  A decision is pending.  Entergy Arkansas expects the amount of damages, if any, to have an immaterial effect on its results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

The APSC also established a separate docket to consider the resolved railroad litigation, and in February 2010 it established a procedural schedule that concluded with testimony through September 2010.  The testimony was filed, and the APSC will decide the case based on the record in the proceeding.

In January 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion with the APSC relating to its redetermination of its energy cost rate that was filed in March 2014. In that motion, Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to exclude $65.9 million of deferred fuel and purchased energy costs incurred in 2013 from the redetermination of its 2014 energy cost rate. The $65.9 million is an estimate of the incremental fuel and replacement energy costs that Entergy Arkansas incurred as a result of the ANO stator incident. Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to retain that amount in its deferred fuel balance, with recovery to be reviewed in a later period after more information is available regarding various claims associated with the ANO stator incident. The APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’s request in February 2014. See the “ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews” section in Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of the ANO stator incident.

Entergy Louisiana

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

In April 2010 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009.  The LPSC staff issued its audit report in January 2013.  The LPSC staff recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $1.9 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $1 million from Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates.  The recommended refund was made by Entergy Louisiana in May 2013 in the form of a credit to customers through its fuel adjustment clause filing. Two parties intervened in the proceeding. A procedural schedule was established for the identification of issues by the intervenors and for Entergy Louisiana to submit comments regarding the LPSC Staff report and any issues raised by intervenors. One intervenor is seeking further proceedings regarding certain issues it raised in its comments on the LPSC Staff report. Entergy Louisiana has filed responses to both the LPSC Staff report and the issues raised by the intervenor. As required by the procedural schedule, a joint status report was submitted in October 2013 by the parties. A status conference was held in December 2013. Discovery has ceased and the parties are awaiting issuance of the audit report of the LPSC staff, but a procedural schedule has not been established.

In December 2011 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate another proceeding to audit the fuel adjustment clause filings of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and its affiliates.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period 2005 through 2009.  Discovery has ceased and the parties are awaiting issuance of the audit report of the LPSC staff, but a procedural schedule has not been established.

In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015.

In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015.

Entergy Mississippi

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

Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel balance of $60.4 million as of March 31, 2014. In May 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed for an interim adjustment under its energy cost recovery rider. The interim adjustment proposed a net energy cost factor designed to collect over a six-month period the under-recovered deferred fuel balance as of March 31, 2014 and also reflected a natural gas price of $4.50 per MMBtu. In May 2014, Entergy Mississippi and the Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation in which Entergy Mississippi agreed to a revised net energy cost factor that reflected the proposed interim adjustment with a reduction in costs recovered through the energy cost recovery rider associated with the suspension of the DOE nuclear waste storage fee. In June 2014 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation and allowed Entergy Mississippi’s interim adjustment. In November 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider.  Due to lower gas prices and a lower deferred fuel balance, the redetermined annual factor was a decrease from the revised interim net energy cost factor.  In January 2015 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective January 30, 2015.

Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel over-recovery balance of $58.3 million as of May 31, 2015, along with an under-recovery balance of $12.3 million under the power management rider. Pursuant to those tariffs, in July 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed for interim adjustments under both the energy cost recovery rider and the power management rider to flow through to customers the approximately $46 million net over-recovery over a six-month period. In August 2015, the MPSC approved the interim adjustments effective with September 2015 bills. In November 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included a projected over-recovery balance of $48 million projected through January 31, 2016. In January 2016 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective February 1, 2016. The MPSC further ordered, however, that due to the significant change in natural gas price forecasts since Entergy Mississippi’s filing in November 2015 Entergy Mississippi shall file a revised fuel factor with the MPSC no later than February 1, 2016. In February 2016, Entergy Mississippi submitted a revised fuel factor reflecting a natural gas price of $2.45 per MMBtu.

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 Attorney General appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the denial of the motion to remand. In July 2015 the Fifth Circuit issued an order denying the appeal, and the Attorney General subsequently filed a petition for rehearing of the request for interlocutory appeal, which was also denied. The case remains pending in federal district court, awaiting a ruling on the Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. In December 2015 the District Court ordered that the parties submit to the court undisputed and disputed facts that are material to the Entergy defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, as well as supplemental briefs regarding the same. Those filings were made in January 2016.

Entergy New Orleans

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

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

Entergy Texas

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

In October 2012, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to refund approximately $78 million, including interest, of fuel cost recovery over-collections through September 2012.  Entergy Texas requested that the refund be implemented over a six-month period effective with the January 2013 billing month.  Entergy Texas and the parties to the proceeding reached an agreement that Entergy Texas would refund $84 million, including interest and additional over-recoveries through October 2012, to most customers over a three-month period beginning January 2013.  The PUCT approved the stipulation in January 2013. Entergy Texas completed this refund to customers in March 2013.

In July 2012, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application to credit its customers approximately $37.5 million, including interest, resulting from the FERC’s October 2011 order in the System Agreement rough production cost equalization proceeding which is discussed below in “System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings.”  In September 2012 the parties submitted a stipulation resolving the proceeding.  The stipulation provided that most Entergy Texas customers would be credited over a four-month period beginning October 2012.  The credits were initiated with the October 2012 billing month on an interim basis, and the PUCT subsequently approved the stipulation, also in October 2012.

In August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking PUCT approval to implement an interim fuel refund of approximately $24.6 million for over-collected fuel costs incurred during the months of November 2012 through April 2014. This refund resulted from (i) applying $48.6 million in bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received in May 2014 related to the June - December 2005 period to Entergy Texas’s $8.7 million under-recovered fuel balance as of April 30, 2014 and (ii) netting that fuel balance against the $15.3 million bandwidth remedy paymentthat Entergy Texas made related to calendar year 2013 production costs. Also in August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed motion for interim rates to implement these refunds for most customers over a two-month period commencing with September 2014. The PUCT issued its order approving the interim relief in August 2014 and Entergy Texas completed the refunds in October 2014.Parties intervened in this matter, and all parties agreed that the proceeding should be bifurcated such that the proposed interim refund would become final in a separate proceeding, which refund was approved by the PUCT in March 2015.   In July 2015 certain parties filed briefs in the open proceeding asserting that Entergy Texas should refund to retail customers an additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs.  In October 2015 an ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments be refunded to retail customers. In January 2016 the PUCT issued its order affirming the ALJ’s recommendation, and Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the PUCT’s decision, which the PUCT denied.

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

Retail Rate Proceedings

Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas)

Retail Rates

2013 Base Rate Filing

In March 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing assumed Entergy Arkansas’s transition to MISO in December 2013, and requested a rate increase of $174 million, including $49 million of revenue being transferred from collection in riders to base rates. The filing also proposed a new transmission rider and a capacity cost recovery rider. The filing requested a 10.4% return on common equity. In September 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed testimony reflecting an updated rate increase request of $145 million, with no change to its requested return on common equity of 10.4%. Hearings in the proceeding began in October 2013, and in December 2013 the APSC issued an order. The order authorized a base rate increase of $81 million and included an authorized return on common equity of 9.3%. The order allowed Entergy Arkansas to amortize its human capital management costs over a three-and-a-half year period, but also ordered Entergy Arkansas to file a detailed report of the Arkansas-specific costs, savings and final payroll changes upon conclusion of the human capital management strategic imperative. The detailed report was subsequently filed in February 2015. The substance of the report was addressed in Entergy Arkansas’s 2015 base rate filing. New rates under the January 2014 order were implemented in the first billing cycle of March 2014 and were effective as of January 2014. Additionally, in January 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition for rehearing or clarification of several aspects of the APSC’s order, including the 9.3% authorized return on common equity. In February 2014 the APSC granted Entergy Arkansas’s petition for the purpose of considering the additional evidence identified by Entergy Arkansas. In August 2014 the APSC issued an order amending certain aspects of the original order, including providing for a 9.5% authorized return on common equity. Pursuant to the August 2014 order, revised rates were effective for all bills rendered after December 31, 2013 and were implemented in the first billing cycle of October 2014.

2015 Base Rate Filing

In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notified the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a forward test year formula rate plan pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requested a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requested a 10.2% return on common equity. In May 2015 the APSC issued an order suspending the proposed rates and tariffs filed by Entergy Arkansas and establishing a procedural schedule to complete its investigation of Entergy Arkansas’s application. In September 2015, APSC staff and intervenors filed direct testimony, with the APSC staff recommending a revenue requirement of $217.9 million and a 9.65% return on common equity. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in October 2015. In December 2015, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and certain of the intervenors in the rate case filed with the APSC a joint motion for approval of a settlement of the case that proposes a retail rate increase of approximately $225 million with a net increase in revenue of approximately $133 million; an authorized return on common equity of 9.75%; and a formula rate plan tariff that provides a 50 basis point band around the 9.75% allowed return on common equity.

A hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that would reduce the retail rate increase proposed in the settlement by $5 million. The parties were directed to inform the APSC by filing no later than February 26, 2016 whether they accept the APSC’s proposed settlement agreement modification or request a full hearing on the issues. Entergy Arkansas plans to make its first formula rate plan filing in July 2016 for rates effective with the first billing cycle of January 2017.

A significant portion of the rate increase is related to Entergy Arkansas’s acquisition of Union Power Station Power Block 2 for an expected base purchase price of $237 million, subject to adjustment. The acquisition is expected to be completed promptly following the receipt of FERC approval. If the acquisition closes on or before March 24, 2016, recovery of the costs to acquire Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station will be through Entergy Arkansas’s new base rates that will commence with the first billing cycle of April 2016. If the transaction closes after that date, the parties have agreed to concurrent cost recovery through Entergy Arkansas’s capacity acquisition rider.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)

Retail Rates - Electric

2013 Rate Cases

In connection with its decision to extend the formula rate plan to the 2011 test year, the LPSC required that a base rate case be filed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, and the required filing was made in February 2013. The filing anticipated Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s integration into MISO. In the filing Entergy Gulf States Louisiana requested, among other relief:

• authorization to increase the revenue it collects from customers by approximately $24 million;

• an authorized return on common equity of 10.4%;

• authorization to increase depreciation rates embedded in the proposed revenue requirement; and,

• authorization to implement a three-year formula rate plan with a midpoint return on common equity of 10.4%, plus or minus 75 basis points (the deadband), that would provide a means for the annual re-setting of rates (commencing with calendar year 2013 as its first test year), that would include a mechanism to recover incremental transmission revenue requirement on the basis of a forward-looking test year as compared to the initial base year of 2014 with an annual true-up, that would retain the primary aspects of the prior formula rate plan, including a 60% to customers/40% to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana sharing mechanism for earnings outside the deadband, and a capacity rider mechanism that would permit recovery of incremental capacity additions approved by the LPSC.

Following a hearing before an ALJ and the ALJ’s issuance of a Report of Proceedings, in December 2013 the LPSC approved an unopposed settlement of the proceeding. Major terms of the settlement included approval of a three-year formula rate plan (effective for test years 2014-2016) modeled after the formula rate plan in effect for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana for 2011, including the following: (1) a midpoint return on equity of 9.95% plus or minus 80 basis points, with 60/40 sharing of earnings outside of the bandwidth; (2) recovery outside of the sharing mechanism for the non-fuel MISO-related costs, additional capacity revenue requirement, extraordinary items, such as the Ninemile 6 project, and certain special recovery items; (3) three-year amortization of costs to achieve savings associated with the human capital management strategic imperative, with savings to be reflected as they are realized in subsequent years; (4) eight-year amortization of costs incurred in connection with potential development of a new nuclear unit at River Bend, without carrying costs, beginning December 2014, provided, however, that amortization of these costs shall not result in a future rate increase; (5) no change in rates related to test year 2013, except with respect to recovery of the non-fuel MISO-related costs and any changes to the additional capacity revenue requirement; and (6) no increase in rates related to test year 2014, except for those items eligible for recovery outside of the earnings sharing mechanism. Existing depreciation rates will not change. Implementation of rate changes for items recoverable outside of the earnings sharing mechanism occurred in December 2014.

Pursuant to the rate case settlement approved by the LPSC in December 2013, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted a compliance filing in May 2014 reflecting the effects of the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism revenue requirement and adjustment of the additional capacity mechanism. In November 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted an additional compliance filing updating the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism for the most recent actual data. Based on this updated filing, a net increase of $5.8 million in formula rate plan revenue to be collected over nine months was implemented in December 2014. The compliance filings are subject to LPSC review in accordance with the review process set forth in Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s formula rate plan.

In November 2011 the LPSC approved a one-year extension of Entergy Louisiana’s formula rate plan.  In May 2012, Entergy Louisiana made its formula rate plan filing with the LPSC for the 2011 test year.  The filing reflected a 9.63% earned return on common equity, which is within the earnings bandwidth and resulted in no cost of service rate change under the formula rate plan.  The filing also reflected an $18.1 million rate increase for the incremental capacity rider.  In August 2012, Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised filing that reflected an earned return on common equity of 10.38%, which is still within the earnings bandwidth, resulting in no cost of service rate change.  The revised filing also indicated that an increase of $15.9 million should be reflected in the incremental capacity rider.  The rate change was implemented, subject to refund, effective for bills rendered the first billing cycle of September 2012.  Subsequently, in December 2012, Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised evaluation report that reflected two items: 1) a $17 million reduction for the first-year capacity charges for the purchase by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana from Entergy Louisiana of one-third of Acadia Unit 2 capacity and energy, and 2) an $88 million increase for the first-year retail revenue requirement associated with the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, which was in-service in December 2012.  These rate changes were implemented, subject to refund, effective with the first billing cycle of January 2013.  In April 2013, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint report resolving the 2011 test year formula rate plan and recovery related to the Grand Gulf uprate. This report was approved by the LPSC in April 2013.

In connection with its decision to extend the formula rate plan to the 2011 test year, the LPSC required that a base rate case be filed by Entergy Louisiana, and the required filing was made on February 15, 2013. The filing anticipated Entergy Louisiana’s integration into MISO. In the filing Entergy Louisiana requested, among other relief:

• authorization to increase the revenue it collects from customers by approximately $145 million (which does not take into account a revenue offset of approximately $2 million resulting from a proposed increase for those customers taking service under the Qualifying Facility Standby Service);

• an authorized return on common equity of 10.4%;

• authorization to increase depreciation rates embedded in the proposed revenue requirement; and

• authorization to implement a three-year formula rate plan with a midpoint return on common equity of 10.4%, plus or minus 75 basis points (the deadband), that would provide a means for the annual re-setting of rates (commencing with calendar year 2013 as its first test year), that would include a mechanism to recover incremental transmission revenue requirement on the basis of a forward-looking test year as compared to the initial base year of 2014 with an annual true-up, that would retain the primary aspects of the prior formula rate plan, including a 60% to customers/40% to Entergy Louisiana sharing mechanism for earnings outside the deadband, and a capacity rider mechanism that would permit recovery of incremental capacity additions approved by the LPSC.

Following a hearing before an ALJ and the ALJ’s issuance of a Report of Proceedings, in December 2013 the LPSC approved an unopposed settlement of the proceeding. The settlement provided for a $10 million rate increase effective with the first billing cycle of December 2014. Major terms of the settlement included approval of a three-year formula rate plan (effective for test years 2014-2016) modeled after the formula rate plan in effect for Entergy Louisiana for 2011, including the following: (1) a midpoint return on equity of 9.95% plus or minus 80 basis points, with 60/40 sharing of earnings outside of the bandwidth; (2) recovery outside of the sharing mechanism for the non-fuel MISO-related costs, additional capacity revenue requirement, extraordinary items, such as the Ninemile 6 project, and certain special recovery items; (3) three-year amortization of costs to achieve savings associated with the human capital management strategic imperative, with savings reflected as they are realized in subsequent years; (4) eight-year amortization of costs incurred in connection with potential development of a new nuclear unit at River Bend, without carrying costs, beginning December 2014, provided, however, that amortization of these costs shall not result in a future rate increase; (5) recovery of non-fuel MISO-related costs and any changes to the additional capacity revenue requirement related to test year 2013 effective with the first billing cycle of December 2014; and (6) a cumulative $30 million cap on cost of service increases over the three-year formula rate plan cycle, except for those items outside of the sharing mechanism. Existing depreciation rates will not change.

Pursuant to the rate case settlement approved by the LPSC in December 2013, Entergy Louisiana submitted a compliance filing in May 2014 reflecting the effects of the $10 million agreed-upon increase in formula rate plan revenue, the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism revenue requirement, and the adjustment of the additional capacity mechanism. In November 2014, Entergy Louisiana submitted an additional compliance filing updating the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism for the most recent actual data, as well as providing for a refund and prospective reduction in rates for the true-up of the estimated revenue requirement for the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project. Based on this updated filing, a net increase of $41.6 million in formula rate plan revenue to be collected over nine months was implemented in December 2014. The compliance filings are subject to LPSC review in accordance with the review process set forth in Entergy Louisiana’s formula rate plan. Additionally, the adjustments of rates made related to the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project included in the December 2014 compliance filing are subject to final true-up following completion of the LPSC’s determination regarding the prudence of the project. LPSC staff identified five issues, of which two remain. The remaining issues pertain to Entergy Louisiana’s method of collecting the agreed-upon $10 million increase and the level of recovery of investment related to the Grand Gulf uprate. No procedural schedule has been established, however, to address these remaining issues. The final issue raised by the LPSC staff pertains to the appropriate level of refunds related to the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project. That issue will be resolved in connection with the Waterford 3 prudence review proceedings discussed below.

Waterford 3 Replacement Steam Generator Project

Following the completion of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, the LPSC undertook a prudence review in connection with a filing made by Entergy Louisiana in April 2013 with regard to the following aspects of the replacement project: 1) project management; 2) cost controls; 3) success in achieving stated objectives; 4) the costs of the replacement project; and 5) the outage length and replacement power costs. In July 2014 the LPSC Staff filed testimony recommending potential project and replacement power cost disallowances of up to $71 million, citing a need for further explanation or documentation from Entergy Louisiana.  An intervenor filed testimony recommending disallowance of $141 million of incremental project costs, claiming the steam generator fabricator was imprudent.  Entergy Louisiana provided further documentation and explanation requested by the LPSC staff. An evidentiary hearing was held in December 2014. At the hearing the parties maintained the positions reflected in pre-filed testimony. Entergy Louisiana believes that the replacement steam generator costs were prudently incurred and applicable legal principles support their recovery in rates.  Nevertheless, Entergy Louisiana recorded a write-off of $16 million of Waterford 3’s plant balance in December 2014 because of the uncertainty at the time associated with the resolution of the prudence review. In December 2015 the ALJ issued a proposed recommendation, which was subsequently finalized, concluding that Entergy Louisiana prudently managed the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, including the selection, use, and oversight of contractors, and could not reasonably have anticipated the damage to the steam generators. Nevertheless, the ALJ concluded that Entergy Louisiana was liable for the conduct of its contractor and subcontractor and, therefore, recommended a disallowance of $67 million in capital costs. Additionally, the ALJ concluded that Entergy Louisiana did not sufficiently justify the incurrence of $2 million in replacement power costs during the replacement outage. Although the ALJ’s recommendation has yet to be considered by the LPSC, after considering the progress of the proceeding in light of the ALJ recommendation, Entergy Louisiana recorded in the fourth quarter 2015 approximately $77 million in charges, including a $45 million asset write-off and a $32 million regulatory charge, to reflect that a portion of the assets associated with the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project is no longer probable of recovery. Entergy Louisiana maintains that the ALJ’s recommendation contains significant factual and legal errors.

Ninemile 6

In July 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed stipulation with the LPSC that estimated a first year revenue requirement associated with Ninemile 6 and provided a mechanism to update the revenue requirement as the in-service date approached, which was subsequently approved by the LPSC. In late-December 2014, roughly contemporaneous with the unit's placement in service, a final updated estimated revenue requirement of $26.8 million for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and $51.1 million for Entergy Louisiana was filed. The December 2014 estimate forms the basis of rates implemented effective with the first billing cycle of January 2015. In July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a compliance filing including an estimate at completion, inclusive of interconnection costs and transmission upgrades, of approximately $648 million, or $76 million less than originally estimated, along with other project details and supporting evidence, to enable the LPSC to review the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s management of the project. A hearing is scheduled in March 2016.

Union Power Station

In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed its application with the LPSC for approval of the acquisition and cost recovery of two power blocks of the Union Power Station for an expected base purchase price of approximately $237 million per power block, subject to adjustments. In September 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana agreed to settlement terms with all parties for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s purchase of the two power blocks. In October 2015 the LPSC voted unanimously to approve the uncontested settlement which finds, among other things, that acquisition of Power Blocks 3 and 4 is in the public interest and, therefore, prudent. The business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana received regulatory approval and closed in October 2015 making Entergy Louisiana the named purchaser of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station.

Business Combination

In connection with the approval of the business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana, the LPSC authorized the filing of a single, joint formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. The joint evaluation report was filed in September 2015 and reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.09%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following adjustments are required under the formula rate plan, however: a decrease in the additional capacity mechanism for Entergy Louisiana of $17.8 million; an increase in the additional capacity mechanism for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana of $4.3 million; and a reduction of $5.5 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism, to collect approximately $35.7 million on a combined-company basis. Under the order approving the business combination, following completion of the prescribed review period, rates were implemented with the first billing cycle of December 2015, subject to refund. In November 2015, the LPSC staff filed objections, corrections, and comments identifying several issues for potential rate adjustments, including: preservation of previously-raised issues; the implementation of the $10 million increase in annual formula rate plan revenue over abbreviated rate-effective period; the level of adjustment to rates for the extended power uprate at System Energy, as well as asserting a general reservation of rights for further review of adjustments related to Ninemile 6 and the Waterford 3 provision for rate refund; change to gross plant, depreciation, and net plant components of rate base; regulatory debits and credits; adjustment for business combination expenses and the implementation of certain guaranteed customer credits. See “Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination” below for further discussion of the business combination.

Retail Rates - Gas

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

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

In accordance with the settlement of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2012, in August 2014 Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted for consideration a proposal for implementation of an infrastructure rider to recover expenditures associated with strategic plant investment and relocation projects mandated by local governments. After review by the LPSC staff and inclusion of certain customer safeguards required by the LPSC staff, in December 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the LPSC staff submitted a joint settlement for implementation of an accelerated gas pipe replacement program providing for the replacement of approximately 100 miles of pipe over the next ten years, as well as relocation of certain existing pipe resulting from local government-related infrastructure projects, and for a rider to recover the investment associated with these projects. The rider allows for recovery of approximately $65 million over ten years. The rider recovery will be adjusted on a quarterly basis to include actual investment incurred for the prior quarter and is subject to the following conditions, among others: a ten-year term; application of any earnings in excess of 10.45% as an offset to the revenue requirement of the infrastructure rider; adherence to a specified spending plan, within plus or minus 20% annually; annual filings comparing actual versus planned rider spending with actual spending and explanation of variances exceeding 10%; and an annual true-up. The joint settlement was approved by the LPSC in January 2015. Implementation of the infrastructure rider commenced with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of April 2015.

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 resulted 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 was implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015.

In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2015. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 10.22%, which is within the authorized bandwidth, therefore requiring no change in rates. Absent approval of an extension by the LPSC, test year 2015 is the final year under the current gas rate stabilization plan. In February 2016, however, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the terms of the gas rate stabilization plan for an additional three-year term.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Formula Rate Plan Filings

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

In June 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed its first general rate case before the MPSC in almost 12 years.  The rate filing laid out Entergy Mississippi’s plans for improving reliability, modernizing the grid, maintaining its workforce, stabilizing rates, utilizing new technologies, and attracting new industry to its service territory.  Entergy Mississippi requested a net increase in revenue of $49 million for bills rendered during calendar year 2015, including $30 million resulting from new depreciation rates to update the estimated service life of assets.  In addition, the filing proposed, among other things: 1) realigning cost recovery of the Attala and Hinds power plant acquisitions from the power management rider to base rates; 2) including certain MISO-related revenues and expenses in the power management rider; 3) power management rider changes that reflect the changes in costs and revenues that will accompany Entergy Mississippi’s withdrawal from participation in the System Agreement; and 4) a formula rate plan forward test year to allow for known changes in expenses and revenues for the rate effective period.  Entergy Mississippi proposed maintaining the current authorized return on common equity of 10.59%. 

In October 2014, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into and filed joint stipulations that addressed the majority of issues in the proceeding. The stipulations provided for:

• an approximate $16 million net increase in revenues, which reflected an agreed upon 10.07% return on common equity;

• revision of Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan by providing Entergy Mississippi with the ability to reflect known and measurable changes to historical rate base and certain expense amounts; resolving uncertainty around and obviating the need for an additional rate filing in connection with Entergy Mississippi’s withdrawal from participation in the System Agreement; updating depreciation rates; and moving costs associated with the Attala and Hinds generating plants from the power management rider to base rates;

• recovery of non-fuel MISO-related costs through a separate rider for that purpose;

• a deferral of $6 million in other operation and maintenance expenses associated with the Baxter Wilson outage and a determination that the regulatory asset should accrue carrying costs, with amortization of the regulatory asset over two years beginning in February 2015, and a provision that the capital costs will be reflected in rate base. See Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Baxter Wilson outage; and

• consolidation of the new nuclear generation development costs proceeding with the general rate case proceeding for hearing purposes and a determination that Entergy Mississippi would not further pursue, except as noted below, recovery of the costs that were approved for deferral by the MPSC in November 2011. The stipulations state, however, that, if Entergy Mississippi decides to move forward with nuclear development in Mississippi, it can at that time re-present for consideration by the MPSC only those costs directly associated with the existing early site permit (ESP), to the extent that the costs are verifiable and prudent and the ESP is still valid and relevant to any such option pursued. See “New Nuclear Generation Development Costs - Entergy Mississippi” below for further discussion of the new nuclear generation development costs proceeding and subsequent write-off in 2014 of the regulatory asset related to those costs.

In December 2014 the MPSC issued an order accepting the stipulations in their entirety and approving the revenue adjustments and rate changes effective with February 2015 bills.

Filings with the City Council

(Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans)

In March 2013, Entergy Louisiana filed a rate case for the Algiers area, which is in New Orleans and is regulated by the City Council. Entergy Louisiana requested a rate increase of $13 million over three years, including a 10.4% return on common equity and a formula rate plan mechanism identical to its LPSC request. In January 2014 the City Council Advisors filed direct testimony recommending a rate increase of $5.56 million over three years, including an 8.13% return on common equity. In June 2014 the City Council unanimously approved a settlement that includes the following:

• a $9.3 million base rate revenue increase to be phased in on a levelized basis over four years;

• recovery of an additional $853 thousand annually through a MISO recovery rider; and

• the adoption of a four-year formula rate plan requiring the filing of annual evaluation reports in May of each year, commencing May 2015, with resulting rates being implemented in October of each year. The formula rate plan includes a midpoint target authorized return on common equity of 9.95% with a +/- 40 basis point bandwidth.

The rate increase was effective with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of July 2014. Additional compliance filings were made with the Council in October 2014 for approval of the form of certain rate riders, including among others, a Ninemile 6 non-fuel cost recovery interim rider, allowing for contemporaneous recovery of capacity costs related to the commencement of commercial operation of the Ninemile 6 generating unit and a purchased power capacity cost recovery rider. The monthly Ninemile 6 cost recovery interim rider was implemented in December 2014 to initially collect $915 thousand from Entergy Louisiana customers in the Algiers area. See “Algiers Asset Transfer ” below for discussion of the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that serve Algiers customers.

(Entergy New Orleans)

Formula Rate Plan

In April 2009 the City Council approved a three-year formula rate plan for Entergy New Orleans, with terms including an 11.1% benchmark electric return on common equity (ROE) with a +/-40 basis point bandwidth and a 10.75% benchmark gas ROE with a +/-50 basis point bandwidth.  Earnings outside the bandwidth reset to the midpoint benchmark ROE, with rates changing on a prospective basis depending on whether Entergy New Orleans was over- or under-earning.  The formula rate plan also included a recovery mechanism for City Council-approved capacity additions, plus provisions for extraordinary cost changes and force majeure events.

In May 2012, Entergy New Orleans filed its electric and gas formula rate plan evaluation reports for the 2011 test year.  Subsequent adjustments agreed upon with the City Council Advisors indicate a $4.9 million electric base revenue increase and a $0.05 million gas base revenue increase as necessary under the formula rate plan.  As part of the original filing, Entergy New Orleans also requested to increase annual funding for its storm reserve by approximately $5.7 million for five years.  On September 26, 2012, Entergy New Orleans made a filing with the City Council that implemented the $4.9 million electric formula rate plan rate increase and the $0.05 million gas formula rate plan rate increase.  The new rates were effective with the first billing cycle in October 2012.  In August 2013 the City Council unanimously approved a settlement of all issues in the formula rate plan proceeding.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Entergy New Orleans implemented an approximately $1.625 million net decrease to the electric rates that were in effect prior to the electric rate increase implemented in October 2012, with no change in gas rates.  Entergy New Orleans refunded to customers approximately $6 million over the four-month period from September 2013 through December 2013 to make the electric rate decrease effective as of the first billing cycle of October 2012.  Entergy New Orleans had previously recorded provisions for the majority of the refund to customers, but recorded an additional $1.1 million provision in second quarter 2013 as a result of the settlement. Entergy New Orleans’s formula rate plan ended with the 2011 test year and has not been extended.  

See “Algiers Asset Transfer ” below for discussion of the Algiers asset transfer. As a provision of the settlement agreement approved by the City Council in May 2015 providing for the Algiers asset transfer, it was agreed that, with limited exceptions, no action may be taken with respect to Entergy New Orleans’s base rates until rates are implemented from a base rate case that must be filed for its electric and gas operations in 2018. This provision eliminated the formula rate plan applicable to Algiers operations. The limited exceptions include continued implementation of the remaining two years of the four-year phased-in rate increase for its operations in the Algiers area and certain exceptional cost increases or decreases in its base revenue requirement. An additional provision of the settlement agreement allows for continued recovery of the revenue requirement associated with the capacity and energy from Ninemile 6 received by Entergy New Orleans under a power purchase agreement with Entergy Louisiana (Algiers PPA). The settlement authorizes Entergy New Orleans to recover the remaining revenue requirement related to the Algiers PPA through base rates charged to Algiers customers. The settlement also provided for continued implementation of the Algiers MISO recovery rider.

In addition to the Algiers PPA, Entergy New Orleans has a separate power purchase agreement with Entergy Louisiana for 20% of the capacity and energy of the Ninemile Unit 6 generating station (Ninemile PPA), which commenced operation in December 2014. Initially, recovery of the non-fuel costs associated with the Ninemile PPA was authorized through a special Ninemile 6 rider billed to only Entergy New Orleans customers outside of Algiers.

In August 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to proceed with the acquisition of Union Power Block 1, with an expected base purchase price of approximately $237 million, subject to adjustments, and seeking approval of the recovery of the associated costs. In November 2015 the City Council issued written resolutions and an order approving an agreement in principle between Entergy New Orleans and City Council advisors providing that the purchase of Union Power Block 1 and related assets by Entergy New Orleans is prudent and in the public interest. The City Council authorized expansion of the special Ninemile 6 rider, discussed above, to cover the non-fuel purchased power from Ninemile 6 as well as the revenue requirement associated with the acquisition of Union Power Block 1, upon closing of the transaction.

A 2008 rate case settlement included $3.1 million per year in electric rates to fund the Energy Smart energy efficiency programs.  In September 2009 the City Council approved the energy efficiency programs filed by Entergy New Orleans.  The rate settlement provides an incentive for Entergy New Orleans to meet or exceed energy savings targets set by the City Council and provides a mechanism for Entergy New Orleans to recover lost contribution to fixed costs associated with the energy savings generated from the energy efficiency programs. In October 2013 the City Council approved the extension of the current Energy Smart program through December 2014. The City Council approved the use of $3.5 million of rough production cost equalization funds for program costs. In addition, Entergy New Orleans will be allowed to recover its lost contribution to fixed costs and to earn an incentive for meeting program goals. In January 2015 the City Council approved extending the Energy Smart program through March 2015 and using $1.2 million of rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs for the extended period. Additionally, the City Council approved funding for the Energy Smart 2 programs from April 2015 through March 2017 using the remainder of the approximately $12.8 million of 2014 rough production cost equalization funds, and with any remaining costs being recovered through the fuel adjustment clause. This funding methodology was modified in November 2015 when the City Council directed Entergy New Orleans to use a combination of guaranteed customer savings related to a prior agreement with the City Council and rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs prior to recovering any costs through the fuel adjustment clause.

Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas)

Retail Rates

2011 Rate Case

In November 2011, Entergy Texas filed a rate case requesting a $112 million base rate increase reflecting a 10.6% return on common equity based on an adjusted June 2011 test year.  The rate case also proposed a purchased power recovery rider.  On January 12, 2012, the PUCT voted not to address the purchased power recovery rider in the current rate case, but the PUCT voted to set a baseline in the rate case proceeding that would be applicable if a purchased power capacity rider is approved in a separate proceeding.  In April 2012 the PUCT Staff filed direct testimony recommending a base rate increase of $66 million and a 9.6% return on common equity.  The PUCT Staff, however, subsequently filed a statement of position in the proceeding indicating that it was still evaluating the position it would ultimately take in the case regarding Entergy Texas’s recovery of purchased power capacity costs and Entergy Texas’s proposal to defer its MISO transition expenses.  In April 2012, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony indicating a revised request for a $105 million base rate increase.  A hearing was held in late-April through early-May 2012.

In September 2012 the PUCT issued an order approving a $28 million rate increase, effective July 2012.  The order includes a finding that “a return on common equity (ROE) of 9.80 percent will allow [Entergy Texas] a reasonable opportunity to earn a reasonable return on invested capital.”  The order also provides for increases in depreciation rates and the annual storm reserve accrual.  The order also reduced Entergy Texas’s proposed purchased power capacity costs, stating that they are not known and measurable; reduced Entergy Texas’s regulatory assets associated with Hurricane Rita; excluded from rate recovery capitalized financially-based incentive compensation; included $1.6 million of MISO transition expense in base rates, and reduced Entergy’s Texas’s fuel reconciliation recovery by $4 million because it disagreed with the line-loss factor used in the calculation.  After considering the progress of the proceeding in light of the PUCT order, Entergy Texas recorded in the third quarter 2012 an approximate $24 million charge to recognize that assets associated with Hurricane Rita, financially-based incentive compensation, and fuel recovery are no longer probable of recovery.  Entergy Texas continues to believe that it is entitled to recover these prudently incurred costs, however, and it filed a motion for rehearing regarding these and several other issues in the PUCT’s order on October 4, 2012.  Several other parties also filed motions for rehearing of the PUCT’s order.  The PUCT subsequently denied rehearing of substantive issues.  Several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. A hearing was held in July 2014. In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced above, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Briefs were filed by the appealing and responding parties in the first half of 2015. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. The appeal is currently pending.

2013 Rate Case

In September 2013, Entergy Texas filed a rate case requesting a $38.6 million base rate increase reflecting a 10.4% return on common equity based on an adjusted test year ending March 31, 2013. The rate case also proposed (1) a rough production cost equalization adjustment rider recovering Entergy Texas’s payment to Entergy New Orleans to achieve rough production cost equalization based on calendar year 2012 production costs and (2) a rate case expense rider recovering the cost of the 2013 rate case and certain costs associated with previous rate cases. The rate case filing also included a request to reconcile $0.9 billion of fuel and purchased power costs and fuel revenues covering the period July 2011 through March 2013. The fuel reconciliation also reflects special circumstances fuel cost recovery of approximately $22 million of purchased power capacity costs. In January 2014 the PUCT staff filed direct testimony recommending a retail rate reduction of $0.3 million and a 9.2% return on common equity. In March 2014, Entergy Texas filed an Agreed Motion for Interim Rates. The motion explained that the parties to this proceeding have agreed that Entergy Texas should be allowed to implement new rates reflecting an $18.5 million base rate increase, effective for usage on and after April 1, 2014, as well as recovery of charges for rough production cost equalization and rate case expenses. In March 2014 the State Office of Administrative Hearings, the body assigned to hear the case, approved the motion. In April 2014, Entergy Texas filed a unanimous stipulation in this case. Among other things, the stipulation provides for an $18.5 million base rate increase, provides for recovery over three years of the calendar year 2012 rough production cost equalization charges and rate case expenses, and states a 9.8% return on common equity. In addition, the stipulation finalizes the fuel and purchased power reconciliation covering the period July 2011 through March 2013, with the parties stipulating an immaterial fuel disallowance. No special circumstances recovery of purchased power capacity costs was allowed. In April 2014 the State Office of Administrative Hearings remanded the case back to the PUCT for final processing. In May 2014 the PUCT approved the stipulation. No motions for rehearing were filed during the statutory rehearing period.

2015 Rate Case

In June 2015, Entergy Texas filed a rate case that included pro forma adjustments to reflect the proposed acquisition of Union Power Station Power Block 1, which is one of four units that comprise the Union Power Station near El Dorado, Arkansas. Previously in 2015 Entergy Texas made a filing with the PUCT requesting that it grant a certificate of convenience and necessity for the Union acquisition. In July 2015 the PUCT requested briefing on legal and policy issues related to, among other things, the propriety of rate recovery for the Union Power transaction given the uncertainty of the actual closing date of the transaction and the commencement of the rate year, as well as Entergy Texas’s requirement for acceptable rate treatment as a condition to closing the transaction. Also in July 2015, in connection with the requested briefing, the PUCT staff and certain parties filed briefs concluding that Entergy Texas should not be permitted recovery for the Union Power Station purchase in the rate case. Based on the opposition to the acquisition of the power block, Entergy Texas determined it was appropriate to seek to dismiss the certificate of convenience and necessity filing and withdraw the rate case. In July 2015, Entergy Texas filed its notice of withdrawal of its base rate case and the ALJs in the case dismissed the case from the dockets of the State Office of Administrative Hearings and the PUCT. In the third quarter 2015, Entergy Texas wrote off $4.7 million in rate case expenses and acquisition costs related to the proposed Union Power Station acquisition.

Other Filings

In September 2014, Entergy Texas filed for a distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider based on a law that was passed in 2011 allowing for the recovery of increases in capital costs associated with distribution plant. Entergy Texas requested collection of approximately $7 million annually from retail customers. The parties reached a unanimous settlement authorizing recovery of $3.6 million annually commencing with usage on and after January 1, 2015. A State Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ issued an order in December 2014 authorizing this recovery on an interim basis and remanded the case to the PUCT. In February 2015 the PUCT entered a final order, making the settlement final and the interim rates permanent. In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed to amend its distribution cost recovery factor rider. Entergy Texas requested an increase in recovery under the rider of $6.5 million, for a total collection of $10.1 million annually from retail customers. In October 2015 intervenors and PUCT staff filed testimony opposing, in part, Entergy Texas’s request. In November 2015 Entergy Texas and the parties filed an unopposed settlement agreement and supporting documents. The settlement established an annual revenue requirement of $8.65 million for the amended DCRF rider, with the resulting rates effective for usage on and after January 1, 2016. The PUCT approved the settlement agreement in February 2016.

In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony was filed in November 2015, with the PUCT staff and other parties proposing various disallowances that would reduce the requested increase. The largest remaining single disallowance is $3.4 million which would impose a load growth adjustment on Entergy Texas’s TCRF rider. A hearing on the merits was held in December 2015. A proposal for decision from the ALJ is expected in first quarter 2016.

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination

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 application, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana identified potential benefits, including enhanced economic and customer diversity, enhanced geographic and supply diversity, and greater administrative efficiency. In the initial proceedings with the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana estimated that the business combination could produce up to $128 million in measurable customer benefits during the first ten years following the transaction’s close including proposed guaranteed customer credits of $97 million in the first nine years.  In April 2015 the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony in the LPSC business combination proceeding. The testimony recommended an extensive set of conditions that would be required in order to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The LPSC staff’s primary concern appeared to be potential shifting in fuel costs between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. In May 2015, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony. After the testimony was filed with the LPSC, the parties engaged in settlement discussions that ultimately led to the execution of an uncontested stipulated settlement (“stipulated settlement”), which was filed with the LPSC in July 2015. Through the stipulated settlement, the parties agreed to terms upon which to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The stipulated settlement, which was either joined, or unopposed, by all parties to the LPSC proceeding, represents a compromise of stakeholder positions and was the result of an extensive period of analysis, discovery, and negotiation. The stipulated settlement provides $107 million in guaranteed customer benefits during the first nine years following the transaction’s close. Additionally, the combined company will honor the 2013 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana rate case settlements, including the commitments that (1) there will be no rate increase for legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers for the 2014 test year, and (2) through the 2016 test year formula rate plan, Entergy Louisiana (as a combined entity) will not raise rates by more than $30 million, net of the $10 million rate increase included in the Entergy Louisiana legacy formula rate plan. The stipulated settlement also describes the process for implementing a fuel-tracking mechanism that is designed to address potential effects arising from the shifting of fuel costs between legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers as a result of the combination of those companies’ fuel adjustment clauses. Specifically, the fuel tracker would reallocate such cost shifts as between legacy customers of the companies on an after-the-fact basis, and the calculation of the fuel tracker will be submitted annually in a compliance filing. The stipulated settlement also provides that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana are permitted to defer certain external costs that were incurred to achieve the business combination’s customer benefits. The deferred amount, which shall not exceed $25 million, will be subject to a prudence review and amortized over a 10-year period. In 2015 deferrals of $16 million for these external costs were recorded. A hearing on the stipulated settlement in the LPSC proceeding was held in July 2015. In August 2015 the LPSC approved the business combination.

In April 2015 the FERC approved applications requesting authorization for the business combination. In August 2015 the NRC approved the applications for the River Bend and Waterford 3 license transfers as part of the steps to complete the business combination.

On October 1, 2015, the businesses formerly conducted by Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana were combined into a single public utility. With the completion of the business combination, Entergy Louisiana holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed the liabilities, of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The combination was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control. The effect of the business combination has been retrospectively applied to Entergy Louisiana's financial statements that are presented in this report. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the customer credits resulting from the business combination.

Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans)

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 supported the provision of service to Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers assets transfer. In May 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement authorizing the Algiers assets transfer and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in May 2015. On September 1, 2015, Entergy Louisiana transferred its Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans for a purchase price of approximately $85 million, subject to closing adjustments. Entergy New Orleans paid Entergy Louisiana $59.6 million, including final true-ups, from available cash and issued a note payable to Entergy Louisiana in the amount of $25.5 million. See Note 1 to the financial statements for a discussion of the accounting for the Algiers asset transfer and the basis of presentation for the Entergy New Orleans’s financial statements presented in this report.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

The Utility operating companies historically have engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which is a rate schedule that has been approved by the FERC.  Certain of the Utility operating companies’ retail regulators and other parties are pursuing litigation involving the System Agreement at the FERC.  The proceedings include challenges to the allocation of costs as defined by the System Agreement and allegations of imprudence by the Utility operating companies in their execution of their obligations under the System Agreement.

In June 2005 the FERC issued a decision in System Agreement litigation that had been commenced by the LPSC, and essentially affirmed its decision in a December 2005 order on rehearing.  The FERC decision concluded, among other things, that:

• The System Agreement no longer roughly equalizes total production costs among the Utility operating companies.

• In order to reach rough production cost equalization, the FERC imposed a bandwidth remedy by which each company’s total annual production costs will have to be within +/- 11% of Entergy System average total annual production costs.

• In calculating the production costs for this purpose under the FERC’s order, output from the Vidalia hydroelectric power plant will not reflect the actual Vidalia price for the year but is priced at that year’s average price paid by Entergy Louisiana for the exchange of electric energy under Service Schedule MSS-3 of the System Agreement, thereby reducing the amount of Vidalia costs reflected in the comparison of the Utility operating companies’ total production costs.

• The remedy ordered by FERC in 2005 required no refunds and became effective based on calendar year 2006 production costs and the first reallocation payments were made in 2007.

The FERC’s decision reallocates total production costs of the Utility operating companies whose relative total production costs expressed as a percentage of Entergy System average production costs are outside an upper or lower bandwidth.  Under the current circumstances, this will be accomplished by payments from Utility operating companies whose production costs are more than 11% below Entergy System average production costs to Utility operating companies whose production costs are more than the Entergy System average production cost, with payments going first to those Utility operating companies whose total production costs are farthest above the Entergy System average.

The financial consequences of the FERC’s decision are determined by the total production cost of each Utility operating company, which are affected by the mix of solid fuel and gas-fired generation available to each company and the costs of natural gas and purchased power.  Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Texas, and Entergy Mississippi are more dependent upon gas-fired generation sources than Entergy Arkansas or Entergy New Orleans.  Of these, Entergy Arkansas is the least dependent upon gas-fired generation sources.  Therefore, increases in natural gas prices generally increased the amount by which Entergy Arkansas’s total production costs were below the Entergy System average production costs.

The LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers appealed the FERC’s December 2005 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  Entergy and the City of New Orleans intervened in the various appeals.  The D.C. Circuit issued its decision in April 2008.  The D.C. Circuit concluded that the FERC’s orders had failed to adequately explain both its conclusion that it was prohibited from ordering refunds for the 20-month period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003 and its determination to implement the bandwidth remedy commencing on January 1, 2006, rather than June 1, 2005.  The D.C. Circuit remanded the case to the FERC for further proceedings on these issues.

In October 2011, the FERC issued an order addressing the D.C. Circuit remand on these two issues.  On the first issue, the FERC concluded that it did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-month period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003.  Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, which is discussed in a separate section below, the FERC concluded that the refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in that proceeding.  On the second issue, the FERC reversed its prior decision and ordered that the prospective bandwidth remedy begin on June 1, 2005 (the date of its initial order in the proceeding) rather than January 1, 2006, as it had previously ordered.  Pursuant to the October 2011 order, Entergy was required to calculate the additional bandwidth payments for the period June - December 2005 utilizing the bandwidth formula tariff prescribed by the FERC that was filed in a December 2006 compliance filing and accepted by the FERC in an April 2007 order.  As is the case with bandwidth remedy payments, these payments and receipts will ultimately be paid by Utility operating company customers to other Utility operating company customers. 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 an 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. In October 2015 the FERC issued three orders related to the commencement of the remedy on June 1, 2005 and the inclusion of interest on the amount for the period June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. Specifically, the FERC rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of its decision to include interest on the amount for the seven-month period. The FERC also rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of the order rejecting the compliance filing with regard to the issue of interest. Finally, the FERC set for hearing and settlement procedures the 2014 compliance filing that included the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. In setting the compliance filing for hearing, the FERC rejected the APSC’s protest that Entergy Arkansas should not be subject to the filing because Entergy Arkansas would be making the payments during a period following its exit from the System Agreement. The hearing on the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 is scheduled to occur in July 2016.

In December 2011, Entergy filed with the FERC its compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s October 2011 order.  The filing shows the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$156
Entergy Louisiana	($75)
Entergy Mississippi	($33)
Entergy New Orleans	($5)
Entergy Texas	($43)

Entergy Arkansas made its payment in January 2012.  In February 2012, Entergy Arkansas filed for an interim adjustment to its production cost allocation rider requesting that the $156 million payment be collected from customers over the 22-month period from March 2012 through December 2013.  In March 2012 the APSC issued an order stating that the payment can be recovered from retail customers through the production cost allocation rider, subject to refund.  The LPSC and the APSC have requested rehearing of the FERC’s October 2011 order.  In December 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for a writ of mandamus at the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In its petition, the LPSC requested that the D.C. Circuit issue an order compelling the FERC to issue a final order on pending rehearing requests. In January 2014 the D.C. Circuit denied the LPSC’s petition. The APSC, the LPSC, the PUCT, and other parties intervened in the December 2011 compliance filing proceeding, and the APSC and the LPSC also filed protests.

In February 2014 the FERC issued a rehearing order addressing its October 2011 order. The FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing on the issues of whether the bandwidth remedy should be made effective earlier than June 1, 2005, and whether refunds should be ordered for the 20-month refund effective period. The FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request on the issue of interest on the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period, requiring that interest be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date those bandwidth payments/receipts are made. Also in February 2014 the FERC issued an order rejecting the December 2011 compliance filing that calculated the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. The FERC order required a new compliance filing that calculates the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period based on monthly data for the seven individual months including interest pursuant to the February 2014 rehearing order. Entergy has sought rehearing of the February 2014 orders with respect to the FERC’s determinations regarding interest. In April 2014 the LPSC filed a petition for review of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The appeal is pending.

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

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$68
Entergy Louisiana	($10)
Entergy Mississippi	($11)
Entergy New Orleans	$2
Entergy Texas	($49)

These payments were made in May 2014. The LPSC, City Council, and APSC have filed protests.

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

Each May since 2007 Entergy has filed with the FERC the rates to implement the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  These filings show the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies are necessary to achieve rough production cost equalization as defined by the FERC’s orders:

	Payments (Receipts)
	2007			2008			2009			2010			2011			2012			2013			2014
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas		$252			$252			$390			$41			$77			$41			$—			$—
Entergy Louisiana		($211	)		($160	)		($247	)		($22	)		($12	)		($41	)		$—			$—
Entergy Mississippi		($41	)		($20	)		($24	)		($19	)		($40	)		$—			$—			$—
Entergy New Orleans		$—			($7	)		$—			$—			($25	)		$—			($15	)		($15	)
Entergy Texas		($30	)		($65	)		($119	)		$—			$—			$—			$15			$15

The Utility operating companies record, as necessary, accounts payable or accounts receivable to reflect the rough production cost equalization payments and receipts required to implement the FERC’s remedy.  When accounts payable are recorded, a corresponding regulatory asset is recorded for the right to collect the payments from customers. When accounts receivable are recorded, a corresponding regulatory liability is recorded for the obligations to pass the receipts on to customers.  As discussed below, no payments and receipts were required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Entergy Arkansas ceased participating in the System Agreement on December 18, 2013 and was not part of the calendar year 2013 or 2014 production costs calculations.

The APSC has approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Texas is recovering its 2013 rough production cost equalization payment over three years beginning April 2014. Entergy Texas included its 2014 rough production cost equalization payment as component of an interim fuel refund made in 2014. Management believes that any changes in the allocation of production costs resulting from the FERC’s decision and related retail proceedings should result in similar rate changes for retail customers, subject to specific circumstances that have caused trapped costs.  

Comprehensive Bandwidth Recalculation for 2007, 2008, and 2009 Rate Filing Proceedings

In July 2014 the FERC issued four orders in connection with various Service Schedule MSS-3 rough production cost equalization formula compliance filings and rehearing requests. Specifically, the FERC accepted Entergy Services’ revised methodologies for calculating certain cost components of the formula and affirmed its prior ruling requiring interest on the true-up amounts. The FERC directed that a comprehensive recalculation of the formula be performed for the filing years 2007, 2008, and 2009 based on calendar years 2006, 2007, and 2008 production costs. In September 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC its compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts, including interest, among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s orders for the 2007, 2008, and 2009 rate filing proceedings. The filing shows the following additional payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$38
Entergy Louisiana	($38)
Entergy Mississippi	$16
Entergy New Orleans	($1)
Entergy Texas	($15)

Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi made the payments in September and October 2014.

The FERC proceedings that resulted from rate filings made in 2007, 2008, and 2009 have been resolved by various orders issued by the FERC and appellate courts. See below for a discussion of rate filings since 2009 and the comprehensive recalculation filing directed by the FERC in the proceeding related to the 2010 rate filing.

2010 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2009 Production Costs

In May 2010, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2010 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding, and supplemented the filing in September 2010.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC and the City Council, which also filed protests.  In July 2010 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2010, subject to refund, and set the proceeding for hearing and settlement procedures.  Settlement procedures have been terminated, and the ALJ scheduled hearings to begin in March 2011.  Subsequently, in January 2011 the ALJ issued an order directing the parties and FERC Staff to show cause why this proceeding should not be stayed pending the issuance of FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review.  In March 2011 the ALJ issued an order placing this proceeding in abeyance. In October 2013 the FERC issued an order granting clarification and denying rehearing with respect to its October 2011 rehearing order in this proceeding. The FERC clarified that in a bandwidth proceeding parties can challenge erroneous inputs, implementation errors, or prudence of cost inputs, but challenges to the bandwidth formula itself must be raised in a Federal Power Act section 206 complaint or section 205 filing. Subsequently in October 2013 the presiding ALJ lifted the stay order holding in abeyance the hearing previously ordered by the FERC and directing that the remaining issues proceed to a hearing on the merits. The hearing was held in March 2014 and the presiding ALJ issued an initial decision in September 2014. Briefs on exception were filed in October 2014. In December 2015 the FERC issued an order affirming the initial decision in part and rejecting the initial decision in part. Among other things, the December 2015 order directs Entergy Services to submit a compliance filing, the results of which may affect the rough production cost equalization filings made for the June - December 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 test periods. In January 2016 the LPSC, the APSC, and Entergy Services filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s December 2015 order. In February 2016, Entergy Services submitted the compliance filing ordered in the December 2015 order.  The result of the true-up payments and receipts for the recalculation of production costs resulted in the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$2
Entergy Louisiana	$6
Entergy Mississippi	($4)
Entergy New Orleans	($1)
Entergy Texas	($3)

2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs

In May 2011, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2011 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest.  In July 2011 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2011, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review. In January 2014 the LPSC filed a petition for a writ of mandamus at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In its petition, the LPSC requested that the Fifth Circuit issue an order compelling the FERC to issue a final order in several proceedings related to the System Agreement, including the 2011 rate filing based on calendar year 2010 production costs and the 2012 and 2013 rate filings discussed below. In March 2014 the Fifth Circuit rejected the LPSC’s petition for a writ of mandamus. In December 2014 the FERC rescinded its earlier abeyance order and consolidated the 2011 rate filing with the 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs

In May 2012, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2012 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest.  In August 2012 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 2012, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review. In December 2014 the FERC rescinded its earlier abeyance order and consolidated the 2012 rate filing with the 2011, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs

In May 2013, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2013 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest. The City Council intervened and filed comments related to including the outcome of a related FERC proceeding in the 2013 cost equalization calculation. In August 2013 the FERC issued an order accepting the 2013 rates, effective June 1, 2013, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review. In December 2014 the FERC rescinded its earlier abeyance order and consolidated the 2013 Rate Filing with the 2011, 2012, and 2014 Rate Filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs

In May 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2014 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest. The City Council intervened and filed comments. In December 2014 the FERC issued an order accepting the 2014 rates, effective June 1, 2014, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and consolidated the 2014 Rate Filing with the 2011, 2012, and 2013 Rate Filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

Consolidated 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Rate Filing Proceedings

As discussed above, in December 2014 the FERC consolidated the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. 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. In July 2015 the parties filed direct and answering testimony. Among other issues with the pending bandwidth calculations, the LPSC challenged the administration of the accounting for joint account sales of energy in the intra-system bill. In August and September 2015 the parties filed additional rounds of testimony in the consolidated hearing for the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings. In October 2015 the LPSC withdrew its testimony challenging the accounting for joint account sales of energy. The hearings occurred in November 2015, and an initial decision from the ALJ is expected in July 2016.

2015 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2014 Production Costs

In May 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2015 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing showed that no payments and receipts were required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC and City Council intervened and filed comments. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2015 rates for filing, suspended them for a nominal period, to become effective June 1, 2015, as requested, subject to refund, and set them for hearing and settlement judge procedures.

Calendar Year 2015 Production Costs

Entergy preliminarily estimates that no payments and receipts are required in 2016 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2015 production costs. The actual payments/receipts for 2016, based on calendar year 2015 production costs, will not be calculated until the Utility operating companies’ 2015 FERC Form 1s have been filed. Once the calculation is completed, it will be filed at the FERC. The level of any payments and receipts is significantly affected by a number of factors, including, among others, weather, the price of alternative fuels, the operating characteristics of the Entergy System generating fleet, and multiple factors affecting the calculation of the non-fuel related revenue requirement components of the total production costs, such as plant investment. The calculation based on 2015 production costs will be the last rough production cost equalization filing submitted by the Utility operating companies because the System Agreement will terminate at the end of August 2016.

Utility Operating Company Termination of System Agreement Participation

Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi ceased participating in the System Agreement effective December 18, 2013 and November 7, 2015, respectively. Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas will terminate participation in the System Agreement on August 31, 2016, which will result in the termination of the System Agreement in its entirety pursuant to a settlement agreement approved by the FERC in December 2015.

In connection with the System Agreement termination settlement agreement, it was determined that the purchase power agreements, referred to as the jurisdictional separation plan PPAs, between Entergy Texas and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana that were put in place for certain legacy gas units at the time of Entergy Gulf States’s separation into Entergy Texas and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana will terminate effective with System Agreement termination. Similarly, the PPA between Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Texas for the Calcasieu unit also will terminate. Currently, the jurisdictional separation plan PPAs are the means by which Entergy Texas receives payment for its receivable associated with Entergy Louisiana’s Spindletop gas storage facility regulatory asset. As a result of the System Agreement termination settlement agreement, effective with the termination date, Entergy Texas will no longer receive payments from Entergy Louisiana related to the Spindletop storage facility which resulted in a write-off recorded in 2015 by Entergy Texas of $23.5 million ($15.3 million net-of-tax).

Interruptible Load Proceeding

In April 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in the LPSC’s appeal of the FERC’s March 2004 and April 2005 orders related to the treatment under the System Agreement of the Utility operating companies’ interruptible loads.  In its opinion the D.C. Circuit concluded that the FERC (1) acted arbitrarily and capriciously by allowing the Utility operating companies to phase-in the effects of the elimination of the interruptible load over a 12-month period of time; (2) failed to adequately explain why refunds could not be ordered under Section 206(c) of the Federal Power Act; and (3) exercised appropriately its discretion to defer addressing the cost of sulfur dioxide allowances until a later time.  The D.C. Circuit remanded the matter to the FERC for a more considered determination on the issue of refunds.  The FERC issued its order on remand in September 2007, in which it directed Entergy to make a compliance filing removing all interruptible load from the computation of peak load responsibility commencing April 1, 2004 and to issue any necessary refunds to reflect this change.  In addition, the order directed the Utility operating companies to make refunds for the period May 1995 through July 1996.  In November 2007 the Utility operating companies filed a refund report describing the refunds to be issued pursuant to the FERC’s orders.  The LPSC filed a protest to the refund report in December 2007, and the Utility operating companies filed an answer to the protest in January 2008.  The refunds were made in October 2008 by the Utility operating companies that owed refunds to the Utility operating companies that were due a refund under the decision.  The APSC and the Utility operating companies appealed the FERC decisions to the D.C. Circuit.   

Following the filing of petitioners’ initial briefs, the FERC filed a motion requesting the D.C. Circuit hold the appeal of the FERC’s decisions ordering refunds in the interruptible load proceeding in abeyance and remand the record to the FERC.  The D.C. Circuit granted the FERC’s unopposed motion in June 2009.  In December 2009 the FERC established a paper hearing to determine whether the FERC had the authority and, if so, whether it would be appropriate to order refunds resulting from changes in the treatment of interruptible load in the allocation of capacity costs by the Utility operating companies.  In August 2010 the FERC issued an order stating that it has the authority and refunds are appropriate.  The APSC, MPSC, and Entergy requested rehearing of the FERC’s decision.  In June 2011 the FERC issued an order granting rehearing in part and denying rehearing in part, in which the FERC determined to invoke its discretion to deny refunds.  The FERC held that in this case where “the Entergy system as a whole collected the proper level of revenue, but, as was later established, incorrectly allocated peak load responsibility among the various Entergy operating companies….the Commission will apply here our usual practice in such cases, invoking our equitable discretion to not order refunds, notwithstanding our authority to do so.”  The LPSC has requested rehearing of the FERC’s June 2011 decision.  In July 2011 the refunds made in the fourth quarter 2009 described above were reversed. In October 2011 the FERC issued an “Order Establishing Paper Hearing” inviting parties that oppose refunds to file briefs within 30 days addressing the LPSC’s argument that FERC precedent supports refunds under the circumstances present in this proceeding.  Parties that favor refunds were then invited to file reply briefs within 21 days of the date that the initial briefs are due.  Briefs were submitted and the matter is pending.

In September 2010 the FERC had issued an order setting the refund report filed in the proceeding in November 2007 for hearing and settlement judge procedures.  In May 2011, Entergy filed a settlement agreement that resolved all issues relating to the refund report set for hearing.  In June 2011 the settlement judge certified the settlement as uncontested and the settlement agreement is currently pending before the FERC.  In July 2011, Entergy filed an amended/corrected refund report and a motion to defer action on the settlement agreement until after the FERC rules on the LPSC’s rehearing request regarding the June 2011 decision denying refunds.

Prior to the FERC’s June 2011 order on rehearing, Entergy Arkansas filed an application in November 2010 with the APSC for recovery of the refund that it paid.  The APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s application, and also denied Entergy Arkansas’s petition for rehearing.  If the FERC were to order Entergy Arkansas to pay refunds on rehearing in the interruptible load proceeding the APSC’s decision would trap FERC-approved costs at Entergy Arkansas with no regulatory-approved mechanism to recover them.  In August 2011, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas asking for a declaratory judgment that the rejection of Entergy Arkansas’s application by the APSC is preempted by the Federal Power Act.  The APSC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  In April 2012 the United States district court dismissed Entergy Arkansas’s complaint without prejudice stating that Entergy Arkansas’s claim is not ripe for adjudication and that Entergy Arkansas did not have standing to bring suit at this time.

In March 2013 the FERC issued an order denying the LPSC’s request for rehearing of the FERC’s June 2011 order wherein the FERC concluded it would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in the interruptible load proceeding. Based on its review of the LPSC’s request for rehearing and the briefs filed as part of the paper hearing established in October 2011, the FERC affirmed its earlier ruling and declined to order refunds under the circumstances of the case. 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 the proceeding. Oral argument was held on the appeal in the D.C. Circuit in September 2014. 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. The matter is pending.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

In June 2009, the LPSC filed a complaint requesting that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocate the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibits sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies.   The LPSC’s complaint challenges sales made beginning in 2002 and requests refunds.  In July 2009 the Utility operating companies filed a response to the complaint requesting that the FERC dismiss the complaint on the merits without hearing because the LPSC has failed to meet its burden of showing any violation of the System Agreement and failed to produce any evidence of imprudent action by the Entergy System.  In their response, the Utility operating companies explained that the System Agreement clearly contemplates that the Utility operating companies may make sales to third parties for their own account, subject to the requirement that those sales be included in the load (or load shape) for the applicable Utility operating company.  The response further explained that the FERC already had determined that Entergy Arkansas’s short-term wholesale sales did not trigger the “right-of-first-refusal” provision of the System Agreement.  While the D.C. Circuit recently determined that the “right-of-first-refusal” issue was not properly before the FERC at the time of its earlier decision on the issue, the LPSC raised no additional claims or facts that would warrant the FERC reaching a different conclusion.

The LPSC filed direct testimony in the proceeding alleging, among other things, (1) that Entergy violated the System Agreement by permitting Entergy Arkansas to make non-requirements sales to non-affiliated third parties rather than making such energy available to the other Utility operating companies’ customers; and (2) that over the period 2000 - 2009, these non-requirements sales caused harm to the Utility operating companies’ customers and these customers should be compensated for this harm by Entergy.  In subsequent testimony, the LPSC modified its original damages claim in favor of quantifying damages by re-running intra-system bills.  The Utility operating companies believe the LPSC’s allegations are without merit.  A hearing in the matter was held in August 2010.

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

The FERC issued a decision in June 2012 and held that, while the System Agreement is ambiguous, it does provide authority for individual Utility operating companies to make opportunity sales for their own account and Entergy Arkansas made and priced these sales in good faith.  The FERC found, however, that the System Agreement does not provide authority for an individual Utility operating company to allocate the energy associated with such opportunity sales as part of its load, but provides a different allocation authority.  The FERC further found that the after-the-fact accounting methodology used to allocate the energy used to supply the sales was inconsistent with the System Agreement.  Quantifying the effect of the FERC’s decision will require re-running intra-system bills for a ten-year period, and the FERC in its decision established further hearing procedures to determine the calculation of the effects.  In July 2012, Entergy and the LPSC filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s June 2012 decision, which are pending with the FERC.

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

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

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy Arkansas

Entergy Arkansas December 2012 Winter Storm

In December 2012 a severe winter storm consisting of ice, snow, and high winds caused significant damage to Entergy Arkansas’s distribution lines, equipment, poles, and other facilities.  Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Arkansas’s electrical facilities in areas damaged from the winter storm were $63 million, including costs recorded as regulatory assets of approximately $22 million.  In the Entergy Arkansas 2013 rate case, the APSC approved inclusion of the construction spending in rate base and approved an increase in the normal storm cost accrual.

Entergy Louisiana

Hurricane Isaac

In August 2012, Hurricane Isaac caused extensive damage to portions of Entergy’s service area in Louisiana, and to a lesser extent in Mississippi and Arkansas.  The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages.  In January 2013, Entergy Louisiana drew $252 million, from its funded storm reserve escrow accounts.  In April 2013, Entergy Louisiana filed a joint application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs.  Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested that the LPSC determine the amount of such costs that were prudently incurred and are, thus, eligible for recovery from customers.  Including carrying costs and additional storm escrow funds for prior storms, Entergy Louisiana requested an LPSC determination that $321.5 million in system restoration costs were prudently incurred. In May 2013, Entergy Louisiana, and the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation (LURC), an instrumentality of the State of Louisiana, filed with the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant financing orders authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Act 55 of the Louisiana Regular Session of 2007 (Louisiana Act 55). The LPSC Staff filed direct testimony in September 2013 concluding that Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs incurred by Entergy Louisiana were reasonable and prudent, subject to proposed minor adjustments which totaled approximately 1% of the company’s costs. Following an evidentiary hearing and recommendations by the ALJ, the LPSC voted in June 2014 to approve a series of orders which (i) quantify the amount of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs prudently incurred ($290.8 million for Entergy Louisiana); (ii) determine the level of storm reserves to be re-established ($290 million for Entergy Louisiana); (iii) authorize Entergy Louisiana to utilize Louisiana Act 55 financing for Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs; and (iv) grant other requested relief associated with storm reserves and Act 55 financing of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs.  Entergy Louisiana committed to pass on to customers a minimum of $30.8 million of customer benefits through annual customer credits of approximately $6.2 million for five years. Approvals for the Act 55 financings were obtained from the LURC and the Louisiana State Bond Commission.

In July 2014, Entergy Louisiana issued two series totaling $300 million of 3.78% Series first mortgage bonds due April 2025. Entergy Louisiana used the proceeds to re-establish and replenish its storm damage escrow reserves and for general corporate purposes.

In August 2014 the Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority (LCDA) issued $314.85 million in bonds under Louisiana Act 55.  From the $309 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LCDA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $16 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $293 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  Entergy Louisiana used the $293 million received from the LURC to acquire 2,935,152.69 Class C preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy, that carry a 7.5% annual distribution rate. Distributions are payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2014, and the membership interests have a liquidation price of $100 per unit. The preferred membership interests are callable at the option of Entergy Holdings Company LLC after ten years under the terms of the LLC agreement. The terms of the membership interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Holdings Company LLC is subject, including the requirement to maintain a net worth of at least $1.75 billion.

Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LCDA and there is no recourse against Entergy or Entergy Louisiana in the event of a bond default.  To service the bonds, Entergy Louisiana collect a system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC, and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee.  Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as the billing and collection agent for the state.

Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike

In September 2008, Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike caused catastrophic damage to Entergy’s service territory.  Entergy Louisiana filed its Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike storm cost recovery case with the LPSC in May 2009.  In September 2009, Entergy Louisiana and the LURC filed with the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant financing orders authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55. Entergy Louisiana’s Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita storm costs were financed primarily by Louisiana Act 55 financing, as discussed below.  Entergy Louisiana also filed an application requesting LPSC approval for ancillary issues including the mechanism to flow charges and Louisiana Act 55 financing savings to customers via a Storm Cost Offset rider.

In December 2009, Entergy Louisiana entered into a stipulation agreement with the LPSC Staff that provides for total recoverable costs of approximately $628 million, including carrying costs.  Under this stipulation, Entergy Louisiana agrees not to recover $11.6 million of its storm restoration spending.  The stipulation also permits replenishing Entergy Louisiana’s storm reserve in the amount of $290 million when the Act 55 financings are accomplished.  In March and April 2010, Entergy Louisiana and other parties to the proceeding filed with the LPSC an uncontested stipulated settlement that includes these terms and also includes Entergy Louisiana’s proposal under the Act 55 financings, which includes a commitment to pass on to customers a minimum of $43.3 million of customer benefits through a prospective annual rate reduction of $8.7 million for five years.  A stipulation hearing was held before the ALJ on April 13, 2010.  On April 21, 2010, the LPSC approved the settlement and subsequently issued financing orders and a ratemaking order intended to facilitate the implementation of the Act 55 financings.  In June 2010 the Louisiana State Bond Commission approved the Act 55 financing.

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

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

Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita

In August and September 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused catastrophic damage to large portions of the Utility’s service territories in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, including the effect of extensive flooding that resulted from levee breaks in and around the greater New Orleans area.  The storms and flooding resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to electric distribution, transmission, and generation and gas infrastructure, and the loss of sales and customers due to mandatory evacuations and the destruction of homes and businesses.

In March 2008, Entergy Louisiana and the LURC filed at the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant a financing order authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55.  The Louisiana Act 55 financing is expected to produce additional customer benefits as compared to traditional securitization.  Entergy Louisiana also filed an application requesting LPSC approval for ancillary issues including the mechanism to flow charges and savings to customers via a Storm Cost Offset rider.  On April 8, 2008, the Louisiana Public Facilities Authority (LPFA), which is the issuer of the bonds pursuant to the Act 55 financing, approved requests for the Act 55 financing.  On April 10, 2008, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC Staff filed with the LPSC an uncontested stipulated settlement that includes Entergy Louisiana’s proposal under the Act 55 financing, which includes a commitment to pass on to customers a minimum of $40 million of customer benefits through a prospective annual rate reduction of $8 million for five years.  On April 16, 2008, the LPSC approved the settlement and issued two financing orders and one ratemaking order intended to facilitate implementation of the Act 55 financing.  In May 2008 the Louisiana State Bond Commission granted final approval of the Act 55 financing.

In July 2008, the LPFA issued $687.7 million in bonds under the aforementioned Act 55.  From the $679 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LPFA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $152 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $527 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Louisiana invested $545 million, including $17.8 million that was withdrawn from the restricted escrow account as approved by the April 16, 2008 LPSC orders, in exchange for 5,449,861.85 Class A preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy, that carry a 10% annual distribution rate.  In August 2008, the LPFA issued $278.4 million in bonds under the aforementioned Act 55.  From the $274.7 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LPFA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $87 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $187.7 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Louisiana invested $189.4 million, including $1.7 million that was withdrawn from the restricted escrow account as approved by the April 16, 2008 LPSC orders, in exchange for 1,893,918.39 Class A preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC that carry a 10% annual distribution rate.  Distributions are payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2008 and have a liquidation price of $100 per unit.  The preferred membership interests are callable at the option of Entergy Holdings Company LLC after ten years under the terms of the LLC agreement.  The terms of the membership interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Holdings Company LLC is subject, including the requirement to maintain a net worth of at least $1 billion.  In February 2012, Entergy Louisiana sold 500,000 of its Class A preferred membership units in Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a wholly-owned Entergy subsidiary, to a third party in exchange for $51 million plus accrued but unpaid distributions on the units.  The 500,000 preferred membership units are mandatorily redeemable in January 2112.

Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LPFA, and there is no recourse against Entergy or Entergy Louisiana in the event of a bond default.  To service the bonds, Entergy Louisiana collect a system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC, and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee.  Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as the billing and collection agent for the state.

Entergy Mississippi

On July 1, 2013, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation, wherein both parties agreed that approximately $32 million in storm restoration costs incurred in 2011 and 2012 were prudently incurred and chargeable to the storm damage provision, while approximately $700,000 in prudently incurred costs were more properly recoverable through the formula rate plan. Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff also agreed that the storm damage accrual should be increased from $750,000 per month to $1.75 million per month. In September 2013 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with the increase in the storm damage accrual effective with October 2013 bills. In February 2015, Entergy Mississippi provided notice to the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff that the storm damage accrual would be set to zero effective with the March 2015 billing cycle as a result of Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage accrual balance exceeding $15 million as of January 31, 2015, but will return to its current level when the storm damage accrual balance becomes less than $10 million.

Entergy New Orleans

In October 2006 the City Council approved a rate filing settlement agreement that, among other things, authorized a $75 million storm reserve for damage from future storms, which will be created over a ten-year period through a storm reserve rider that began in March 2007.  These storm reserve funds are held in a restricted escrow account until needed in response to a storm.  

In August 2012, Hurricane Isaac caused extensive damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy New Orleans’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Isaac were $47.3 million. Entergy New Orleans withdrew $17.4 million from the storm reserve escrow account to partially offset these costs. In February 2014, Entergy New Orleans made a filing with the City Council seeking certification of the Hurricane Isaac costs. In January 2015 the City Council issued a resolution approving the terms of a joint agreement in principle filed by Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Louisiana, and the City Council Advisors determining, among other things, that Entergy New Orleans’s prudently-incurred storm recovery costs were $49.3 million, of which $31.7 million, net of reimbursements from the storm reserve escrow account, remains recoverable from Entergy New Orleans’s electric customers. The resolution also directs Entergy New Orleans to file an application to securitize the unrecovered Council-approved storm recovery costs of $31.7 million pursuant to the Louisiana Electric Utility Storm Recovery Securitization Act (Louisiana Act 64). In addition, the resolution found that it is reasonable for Entergy New Orleans to include in the principal amount of its potential securitization the costs to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve in an amount that achieves the Council-approved funding level of $75 million. In January 2015, in compliance with that directive, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the financing of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. 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. In May 2015 the parties entered into an agreement in principle and the City Council issued a financing order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to issue storm recovery bonds in the aggregate amount of $98.7 million, including $31.8 million for recovery of Entergy New Orleans’s Hurricane Isaac storm recovery costs, including carrying costs, $63.9 million to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve, and approximately $3 million for estimated up-front financing costs associated with the securitization. See Note 5 to the financial statements for discussion of the issuance of the securitization bonds in July 2015.

New Nuclear Generation Development Costs

Entergy Louisiana

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana were developing a project option for new nuclear generation at River Bend.  In March 2010, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC seeking approval to continue the limited development activities necessary to preserve an option to construct a new unit at River Bend.  At its June 2012 meeting the LPSC voted to uphold an ALJ recommendation that the request of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana be declined on the basis that the LPSC’s rule on new nuclear development does not apply to activities to preserve an option to develop and on the further grounds that the companies improperly engaged in advanced preparation activities prior to certification.  The LPSC directed that Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana be permitted to seek recovery of these costs in their upcoming rate case filings that were subsequently filed in February 2013. In the resolution of the rate case proceeding the LPSC provided for an eight-year amortization of costs incurred in connection with the potential development of new nuclear generation at River Bend, without carrying costs, beginning in December 2014, provided, however, that amortization of these costs shall not result in a future rate increase. As of December 31, 2015, Entergy Louisiana has a regulatory asset of $50.4 million on its balance sheet related to these new nuclear generation development costs.

Entergy Mississippi

Pursuant to the Mississippi Baseload Act and the Mississippi Public Utilities Act, Entergy Mississippi had been developing and preserving a project option for new nuclear generation at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station.  In October 2010, Entergy Mississippi filed an application with the MPSC requesting that the MPSC determine that it was in the public interest to preserve the option to construct new nuclear generation at Grand Gulf and that the MPSC approve the deferral of Entergy Mississippi’s costs incurred to date and in the future related to this project, including the accrual of AFUDC or similar carrying charges.  In October 2011, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed with the MPSC a joint stipulation that the MPSC approved in November 2011.  The stipulation stated that there should be a deferral of the $57 million of costs incurred through September 2011 in connection with planning, evaluation, monitoring, and other and related generation resource development activities for new nuclear generation at Grand Gulf.  

In October 2014, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into and filed joint stipulations in Entergy Mississippi’s general rate case proceeding, which are discussed above. In consideration of the comprehensive terms for settlement in that rate case proceeding, the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff and Entergy Mississippi agreed that Entergy Mississippi would request consolidation of the new nuclear generation development costs proceeding with the rate case proceeding for hearing purposes and will not further pursue, except as noted below, recovery of the costs deferred by MPSC order in the new nuclear generation development docket. The stipulations state, however, that, if Entergy Mississippi decides to move forward with nuclear development in Mississippi, it can at that time re-present for consideration by the MPSC only those costs directly associated with the existing early site permit (ESP), to the extent that the costs are verifiable and prudent and the ESP is still valid and relevant to any such option pursued. After considering the progress of the new nuclear generation costs proceeding in light of the joint stipulations, Entergy Mississippi recorded in 2014 a $56.2 million pre-tax charge to recognize that the regulatory asset associated with new nuclear generation development is no longer probable of recovery. In December 2014 the MPSC issued an order accepting in their entirety the October 2014 stipulations, including the findings and terms of the stipulations regarding new nuclear generation development costs.

Texas Power Price Lawsuit

In August 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the district court of Chambers County, Texas by Texas residents on behalf of a purported class of the Texas retail customers of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. who were billed and paid for electric power from January 1, 1994 to the present.  The named defendants include Entergy Corporation, Entergy Services, Entergy Power, Entergy Power Marketing Corp., and Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Gulf States, Inc. was not a named defendant, but was alleged to be a co-conspirator.  The court granted the request of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. to intervene in the lawsuit to protect its interests.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a “price gouging accounting scheme” to sell to plaintiffs and similarly situated utility customers higher priced power generated by the defendants while rejecting less expensive power offered from off-system suppliers.  In particular, plaintiffs allege that the defendants manipulated and continue to manipulate the dispatch of generation so that power is purchased from affiliated expensive resources instead of buying cheaper off-system power.

Plaintiffs stated in their pleadings that customers in Texas were charged at least $57 million above prevailing market prices for power.  Plaintiffs seek actual, consequential and exemplary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees, and disgorgement of profits.  The plaintiffs’ experts have tendered a report calculating damages in a large range, from $153 million to $972 million in present value, under various scenarios as of the date of the report.  The Entergy defendants have tendered expert reports challenging the assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions of the plaintiffs’ expert reports.

In March 2012 the state district court found that the case met the requirements to be maintained as a class action under Texas law.  In April 2012 the court entered an order certifying the class.  The defendants appealed the order to the Texas Court of Appeals – First District and oral argument was held in May 2013. In November 2014 the Texas Court of Appeals - First District reversed the state district court’s class certification order and dismissed the case holding that the state district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to address the issues. Plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing and a motion for rehearing en banc. 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. In July 2015 the Court of Appeals issued a new opinion again finding that the plaintiffs’ claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC and, therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The Court of Appeals ordered that the state district court dismiss all claims against the Entergy defendants. In September 2015 plaintiffs filed a petition for review at the Supreme Court of Texas. At the request of the Court, the Entergy defendants filed a response in December 2015. In January 2016 the Supreme Court of Texas issued an order requiring the parties to file briefs on the merits.

Entergy Louisiana [Member]

Rate And Regulatory Matters

RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities

Regulatory assets represent probable future revenues associated with costs that Entergy expects to recover from customers through the regulatory ratemaking process under which the Utility business operates. Regulatory liabilities represent probable future reductions in revenues associated with amounts that Entergy expects to benefit customers through the regulatory ratemaking process under which the Utility business operates. In addition to the regulatory assets and liabilities that are specifically disclosed on the face of the balance sheets, the tables below provide detail of “Other regulatory assets” and “Other regulatory liabilities” that are included on Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and 2014:

Other Regulatory Assets

Entergy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$2,574.9		$2,798.8
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 – Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators) (Note 5 - Entergy Arkansas Securitization Bonds)	717.8		736.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	589.1		513.8
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	273.3		245.1
Little Gypsy costs – recovered through securitization (Note 5 – Entergy Louisiana Securitization Bonds - Little Gypsy)	121.1		139.2
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	66.7		76.2
Transition to competition costs - recovered over a 15-year period through February 2021	57.4		66.2
New nuclear generation development costs (Note 2 - New Nuclear Generation Development Costs) (c)	51.1		58.4
MISO implementation costs - recovery through retail rate riders (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	49.4		69.6
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined by retail regulators	32.2		54.7
Human capital management costs - recovery through retail rate mechanisms (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	28.3		42.3
Other	143.5		168.1
Entergy Total		$4,704.8		$4,968.6

Entergy Arkansas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$766.5		$838.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	288.0		254.8
Storm damage costs - recovered either through securitization or retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators) (Note 5 - Entergy Arkansas Securitization Bonds)	97.2		125.6
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	85.7		59.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	23.0		26.2
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	18.1		23.3
MISO implementation costs - recovery through retail rates through 2018 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (c)	17.5		25.1
Human capital management costs - recovery through retail rates through June 2017 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (c)	10.4		17.3
Lake Catherine 4 reliability and sustainability cost deferral - recovery expected through retail rates (c)	10.4		2.4
Incremental ice storm costs - recovered through 2032	8.4		9.0
Other	8.6		10.4
Entergy Arkansas Total		$1,333.8		$1,391.3

Entergy Louisiana

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$718.7		$774.0
Asset Retirement Obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	180.8		167.5
Little Gypsy costs – recovered through securitization (Note 5 – Entergy Louisiana Securitization Bonds - Little Gypsy)	119.2		139.2
New nuclear generation development costs - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2014 through November 2022 (Note 2 - New Nuclear Generation Development Costs) (c)	50.4		58.4
MISO implementation costs - recovery through the MISO cost recovery mechanism beginning December 2014 through November 2017 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	26.6		37.1
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	19.2		21.1
Human capital management costs - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2014 through November 2017 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	17.6		25.0
River Bend AFUDC - recovered through August 2025 (Note 1 – River Bend AFUDC)	16.7		18.6
Business combination external costs deferral - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2015 through November 2025 (c)	16.1		—
MISO integration deferral - recovery through the MISO cost recovery mechanism beginning December 2014 through November 2017	14.5		23.3
Gas hedging costs - recovered through fuel rates (Note 16 - Derivatives)	7.0		15.8
Spindletop gas storage facility - recovery period through August 2016 (a) (Note 2 - System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings)	1.1		26.2
Other	30.0		34.4
Entergy Louisiana Total		$1,217.9		$1,340.6

Entergy Mississippi

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$216.1		$224.3
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	77.5		76.3
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	7.6		27.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	7.1		8.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	6.7		6.3
Baxter Wilson outage costs - recovered through retail rates over two years beginning February 2015 (Note 8 - Baxter Wilson Plant Event)	3.2		6.0
MISO implementation costs - recovery through retail rate riders (Note 2 – Retail Rate Proceedings)	2.7		4.0
Other	7.8		12.6
Entergy Mississippi Total		$328.7		$364.7

Entergy New Orleans

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through retail rates and securitization (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators)		$104.0		$18.5
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)	103.7		115.8
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	29.4		35.2
Michoud plant maintenance – recovered over a 7-year period through September 2018	5.2		7.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	4.0		3.8
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined monthly or annually	3.1		0.4
Rate case costs - recovered through retail rates (c)	3.2		3.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	1.6		1.8
Other	11.1		9.2
Entergy New Orleans Total		$265.3		$194.9

Entergy Texas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators)		$516.2		$591.7
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)	193.6		217.0
Transition to competition costs - recovered over a 15-year period through February 2021	57.4		66.2
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	25.8		18.9
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	9.4		10.5
Rate case costs -recovered through retail rates (c)	3.8		8.4
Other	6.7		9.4
Entergy Texas Total		$812.9		$922.1

System Energy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans and Other Postretirement Benefits) (b)		$178.0		$191.0
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (b)	108.6		80.4
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	54.8		55.7
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	6.4		8.5
System Energy Total		$347.8		$335.6

(a) The jurisdictional split order assigned the regulatory asset to Entergy Texas.  The regulatory asset, however, is being recovered and amortized at Entergy Louisiana.  As a result, a billing occurs monthly over the same term as the recovery and receipts will be submitted to Entergy Texas.  Entergy Texas has recorded a receivable from Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana has recorded a corresponding payable.

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

(c) Does not earn a return on investment.

Other Regulatory Liabilities

Entergy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)		$611.7		$656.7
Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8)	222.6		242.8
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation (Note 2)	156.0		156.0
Business combination guaranteed customer benefits - returned to customers through retail rates and fuel rates beginning December 2015 through November 2024 (Note 2 - Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination)	105.2		—
Removal costs - returned to customers through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)	68.3		82.7
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback - (Note 10 - Sale and Leaseback Transactions)	67.9		79.5
Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - amortized and credited through the UPSA	46.4		53.6
Entergy Arkansas’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and FERC	44.4		44.4
Waterford 3 replacement steam generator provision (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	31.7		—
Asset retirement obligation - will be returned to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)	28.2		27.7
Other	32.5		40.2
Entergy Total		$1,414.9		$1,383.6

Entergy Arkansas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)		$236.1		$254.0
Other	6.8		—
Entergy Arkansas Total		$242.9		$254.0

Entergy Louisiana

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8)		$222.6		$242.8
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)	196.9		209.1
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation (Note 2)	156.0		156.0
Business combination guaranteed customer benefits - returned to customers through retail rates and fuel rates beginning December 2015 through November 2024 (Note 2 - Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination)	105.2		—
Removal costs - returned to customers through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)	68.3		82.6
Waterford 3 replacement steam generator provision (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	31.7		—
Asset Retirement Obligation - will be returned to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)	28.2		27.7
Other	9.7		4.2
Entergy Louisiana Total		$818.6		$722.4

Entergy Texas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Transition to competition costs - returned to customers through rate riders when rates are redetermined periodically		$6.4		$5.1
Entergy Texas Total		$6.4		$5.1

System Energy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)		$178.7		$193.6
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback - (Note 10 - Sale and Leaseback Transactions)	67.9		79.5
Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - amortized and credited through the UPSA	46.4		53.6
Entergy Arkansas’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and FERC	44.4		44.4
System Energy Total		$337.4		$371.1

(a) Offset by related asset.

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas are allowed to recover fuel and purchased power costs through fuel mechanisms included in electric and gas rates that are recorded as fuel cost recovery revenues.  The difference between revenues collected and the current fuel and purchased power costs is generally recorded as “Deferred fuel costs” on the Utility operating companies’ financial statements.  The table below shows the amount of deferred fuel costs as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 that Entergy expects to recover (or return to customers) through fuel mechanisms, subject to subsequent regulatory review.

	2015			2014
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas (a)		$57.8			$209.2
Entergy Louisiana (b)		$102.9			$107.1
Entergy Mississippi		($107.8	)		($2.2	)
Entergy New Orleans (b)		($24.9	)		($25.1	)
Entergy Texas		($25.1	)		$11.9

(a) 2015 and 2014 include respectively $66.7 million and $65.9 million for Entergy Arkansas of fuel, purchased power, and capacity costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

(b) 2015 and 2014 include $168.1 million for Entergy Louisiana and $4.1 million for Entergy New Orleans of fuel, purchased power, and capacity costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

Entergy Arkansas

Production Cost Allocation Rider

The APSC approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas as a result of the System Agreement proceedings, which are discussed in the “System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings” section below.  These costs cause an increase in Entergy Arkansas’s deferred fuel cost balance because Entergy Arkansas pays the costs over seven months but collects them from customers over twelve months.

In May 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider to recover the $3 million unrecovered retail balance as of December 31, 2013 and the $67.8 million System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment made in May 2014 as a result of the compliance filing pursuant to the FERC’s February 2014 orders related to the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. In June 2014 the APSC suspended the annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider and scheduled a hearing in September 2014. Upon a joint motion of the parties, the APSC canceled the September 2014 hearing and in January 2015 the APSC issued an order approving Entergy Arkansas’s request for recovery of the $3 million under-recovered amount based on the true-up of the production cost allocation rider and the $67.8 million May 2014 System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment subject to refund with interest, with recovery of these payments concluding with the last billing cycle in December 2015. The APSC also found that Entergy Arkansas is entitled to carrying charges pursuant to the current terms of the production cost allocation rider. Entergy Arkansas made its compliance filing pursuant to the order in January 2015 and the APSC issued its approval order, also in January 2015. The redetermined rate went into effect the first billing cycle of February 2015.

In May 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider, which included a $38 million payment made by Entergy Arkansas as a result of the FERC’s February 2014 order related to the comprehensive bandwidth recalculation for calendar year 2006, 2007, and 2008 production costs. The redetermined rate for the 2015 production cost allocation rider update was added to the redetermined rate from the 2014 production cost allocation rider update and the combined rate was effective with the first billing cycle of July 2015. This combined rate was effective through December 2015. The collection of the remainder of the redetermined rate for the 2015 production cost allocation rider update will continue through June 2016.

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

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

In October 2005 the APSC initiated an investigation into Entergy Arkansas’s interim energy cost recovery rate.  The investigation focused on Entergy Arkansas’s 1) gas contracting, portfolio, and hedging practices; 2) wholesale purchases during the period; 3) management of the coal inventory at its coal generation plants; and 4) response to the contractual failure of the railroads to provide coal deliveries.  In March 2006 the APSC extended its investigation to cover the costs included in Entergy Arkansas’s March 2006 annual energy cost rate filing, and a hearing was held in the APSC investigation in October 2006.

In January 2007 the APSC issued an order in its review of the energy cost rate.  The APSC found that Entergy Arkansas failed to maintain an adequate coal inventory level going into the summer of 2005 and that Entergy Arkansas should be responsible for any incremental energy costs that resulted from two outages caused by employee and contractor error.  The coal plant generation curtailments were caused by railroad delivery problems and Entergy Arkansas resolved litigation with the railroad regarding the delivery problems.  The APSC staff was directed to perform an analysis with Entergy Arkansas’s assistance to determine the additional fuel and purchased energy costs associated with these findings and file the analysis within sixty days of the order.  After a final determination of the costs is made by the APSC, Entergy Arkansas will be directed to refund that amount with interest to its customers as a credit on the energy cost recovery rider.  Entergy Arkansas requested rehearing of the order.

In February 2010 the APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s request for rehearing, and held a hearing in September 2010 to determine the amount of damages, if any, that should be assessed against Entergy Arkansas.  A decision is pending.  Entergy Arkansas expects the amount of damages, if any, to have an immaterial effect on its results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

The APSC also established a separate docket to consider the resolved railroad litigation, and in February 2010 it established a procedural schedule that concluded with testimony through September 2010.  The testimony was filed, and the APSC will decide the case based on the record in the proceeding.

In January 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion with the APSC relating to its redetermination of its energy cost rate that was filed in March 2014. In that motion, Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to exclude $65.9 million of deferred fuel and purchased energy costs incurred in 2013 from the redetermination of its 2014 energy cost rate. The $65.9 million is an estimate of the incremental fuel and replacement energy costs that Entergy Arkansas incurred as a result of the ANO stator incident. Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to retain that amount in its deferred fuel balance, with recovery to be reviewed in a later period after more information is available regarding various claims associated with the ANO stator incident. The APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’s request in February 2014. See the “ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews” section in Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of the ANO stator incident.

Entergy Louisiana

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

In April 2010 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009.  The LPSC staff issued its audit report in January 2013.  The LPSC staff recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $1.9 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $1 million from Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates.  The recommended refund was made by Entergy Louisiana in May 2013 in the form of a credit to customers through its fuel adjustment clause filing. Two parties intervened in the proceeding. A procedural schedule was established for the identification of issues by the intervenors and for Entergy Louisiana to submit comments regarding the LPSC Staff report and any issues raised by intervenors. One intervenor is seeking further proceedings regarding certain issues it raised in its comments on the LPSC Staff report. Entergy Louisiana has filed responses to both the LPSC Staff report and the issues raised by the intervenor. As required by the procedural schedule, a joint status report was submitted in October 2013 by the parties. A status conference was held in December 2013. Discovery has ceased and the parties are awaiting issuance of the audit report of the LPSC staff, but a procedural schedule has not been established.

In December 2011 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate another proceeding to audit the fuel adjustment clause filings of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and its affiliates.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period 2005 through 2009.  Discovery has ceased and the parties are awaiting issuance of the audit report of the LPSC staff, but a procedural schedule has not been established.

In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015.

In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015.

Entergy Mississippi

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

Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel balance of $60.4 million as of March 31, 2014. In May 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed for an interim adjustment under its energy cost recovery rider. The interim adjustment proposed a net energy cost factor designed to collect over a six-month period the under-recovered deferred fuel balance as of March 31, 2014 and also reflected a natural gas price of $4.50 per MMBtu. In May 2014, Entergy Mississippi and the Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation in which Entergy Mississippi agreed to a revised net energy cost factor that reflected the proposed interim adjustment with a reduction in costs recovered through the energy cost recovery rider associated with the suspension of the DOE nuclear waste storage fee. In June 2014 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation and allowed Entergy Mississippi’s interim adjustment. In November 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider.  Due to lower gas prices and a lower deferred fuel balance, the redetermined annual factor was a decrease from the revised interim net energy cost factor.  In January 2015 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective January 30, 2015.

Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel over-recovery balance of $58.3 million as of May 31, 2015, along with an under-recovery balance of $12.3 million under the power management rider. Pursuant to those tariffs, in July 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed for interim adjustments under both the energy cost recovery rider and the power management rider to flow through to customers the approximately $46 million net over-recovery over a six-month period. In August 2015, the MPSC approved the interim adjustments effective with September 2015 bills. In November 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included a projected over-recovery balance of $48 million projected through January 31, 2016. In January 2016 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective February 1, 2016. The MPSC further ordered, however, that due to the significant change in natural gas price forecasts since Entergy Mississippi’s filing in November 2015 Entergy Mississippi shall file a revised fuel factor with the MPSC no later than February 1, 2016. In February 2016, Entergy Mississippi submitted a revised fuel factor reflecting a natural gas price of $2.45 per MMBtu.

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 Attorney General appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the denial of the motion to remand. In July 2015 the Fifth Circuit issued an order denying the appeal, and the Attorney General subsequently filed a petition for rehearing of the request for interlocutory appeal, which was also denied. The case remains pending in federal district court, awaiting a ruling on the Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. In December 2015 the District Court ordered that the parties submit to the court undisputed and disputed facts that are material to the Entergy defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, as well as supplemental briefs regarding the same. Those filings were made in January 2016.

Entergy New Orleans

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

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

Entergy Texas

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

In October 2012, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to refund approximately $78 million, including interest, of fuel cost recovery over-collections through September 2012.  Entergy Texas requested that the refund be implemented over a six-month period effective with the January 2013 billing month.  Entergy Texas and the parties to the proceeding reached an agreement that Entergy Texas would refund $84 million, including interest and additional over-recoveries through October 2012, to most customers over a three-month period beginning January 2013.  The PUCT approved the stipulation in January 2013. Entergy Texas completed this refund to customers in March 2013.

In July 2012, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application to credit its customers approximately $37.5 million, including interest, resulting from the FERC’s October 2011 order in the System Agreement rough production cost equalization proceeding which is discussed below in “System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings.”  In September 2012 the parties submitted a stipulation resolving the proceeding.  The stipulation provided that most Entergy Texas customers would be credited over a four-month period beginning October 2012.  The credits were initiated with the October 2012 billing month on an interim basis, and the PUCT subsequently approved the stipulation, also in October 2012.

In August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking PUCT approval to implement an interim fuel refund of approximately $24.6 million for over-collected fuel costs incurred during the months of November 2012 through April 2014. This refund resulted from (i) applying $48.6 million in bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received in May 2014 related to the June - December 2005 period to Entergy Texas’s $8.7 million under-recovered fuel balance as of April 30, 2014 and (ii) netting that fuel balance against the $15.3 million bandwidth remedy paymentthat Entergy Texas made related to calendar year 2013 production costs. Also in August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed motion for interim rates to implement these refunds for most customers over a two-month period commencing with September 2014. The PUCT issued its order approving the interim relief in August 2014 and Entergy Texas completed the refunds in October 2014.Parties intervened in this matter, and all parties agreed that the proceeding should be bifurcated such that the proposed interim refund would become final in a separate proceeding, which refund was approved by the PUCT in March 2015.   In July 2015 certain parties filed briefs in the open proceeding asserting that Entergy Texas should refund to retail customers an additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs.  In October 2015 an ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments be refunded to retail customers. In January 2016 the PUCT issued its order affirming the ALJ’s recommendation, and Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the PUCT’s decision, which the PUCT denied.

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

Retail Rate Proceedings

Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas)

Retail Rates

2013 Base Rate Filing

In March 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing assumed Entergy Arkansas’s transition to MISO in December 2013, and requested a rate increase of $174 million, including $49 million of revenue being transferred from collection in riders to base rates. The filing also proposed a new transmission rider and a capacity cost recovery rider. The filing requested a 10.4% return on common equity. In September 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed testimony reflecting an updated rate increase request of $145 million, with no change to its requested return on common equity of 10.4%. Hearings in the proceeding began in October 2013, and in December 2013 the APSC issued an order. The order authorized a base rate increase of $81 million and included an authorized return on common equity of 9.3%. The order allowed Entergy Arkansas to amortize its human capital management costs over a three-and-a-half year period, but also ordered Entergy Arkansas to file a detailed report of the Arkansas-specific costs, savings and final payroll changes upon conclusion of the human capital management strategic imperative. The detailed report was subsequently filed in February 2015. The substance of the report was addressed in Entergy Arkansas’s 2015 base rate filing. New rates under the January 2014 order were implemented in the first billing cycle of March 2014 and were effective as of January 2014. Additionally, in January 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition for rehearing or clarification of several aspects of the APSC’s order, including the 9.3% authorized return on common equity. In February 2014 the APSC granted Entergy Arkansas’s petition for the purpose of considering the additional evidence identified by Entergy Arkansas. In August 2014 the APSC issued an order amending certain aspects of the original order, including providing for a 9.5% authorized return on common equity. Pursuant to the August 2014 order, revised rates were effective for all bills rendered after December 31, 2013 and were implemented in the first billing cycle of October 2014.

2015 Base Rate Filing

In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notified the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a forward test year formula rate plan pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requested a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requested a 10.2% return on common equity. In May 2015 the APSC issued an order suspending the proposed rates and tariffs filed by Entergy Arkansas and establishing a procedural schedule to complete its investigation of Entergy Arkansas’s application. In September 2015, APSC staff and intervenors filed direct testimony, with the APSC staff recommending a revenue requirement of $217.9 million and a 9.65% return on common equity. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in October 2015. In December 2015, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and certain of the intervenors in the rate case filed with the APSC a joint motion for approval of a settlement of the case that proposes a retail rate increase of approximately $225 million with a net increase in revenue of approximately $133 million; an authorized return on common equity of 9.75%; and a formula rate plan tariff that provides a 50 basis point band around the 9.75% allowed return on common equity.

A hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that would reduce the retail rate increase proposed in the settlement by $5 million. The parties were directed to inform the APSC by filing no later than February 26, 2016 whether they accept the APSC’s proposed settlement agreement modification or request a full hearing on the issues. Entergy Arkansas plans to make its first formula rate plan filing in July 2016 for rates effective with the first billing cycle of January 2017.

A significant portion of the rate increase is related to Entergy Arkansas’s acquisition of Union Power Station Power Block 2 for an expected base purchase price of $237 million, subject to adjustment. The acquisition is expected to be completed promptly following the receipt of FERC approval. If the acquisition closes on or before March 24, 2016, recovery of the costs to acquire Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station will be through Entergy Arkansas’s new base rates that will commence with the first billing cycle of April 2016. If the transaction closes after that date, the parties have agreed to concurrent cost recovery through Entergy Arkansas’s capacity acquisition rider.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)

Retail Rates - Electric

2013 Rate Cases

In connection with its decision to extend the formula rate plan to the 2011 test year, the LPSC required that a base rate case be filed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, and the required filing was made in February 2013. The filing anticipated Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s integration into MISO. In the filing Entergy Gulf States Louisiana requested, among other relief:

• authorization to increase the revenue it collects from customers by approximately $24 million;

• an authorized return on common equity of 10.4%;

• authorization to increase depreciation rates embedded in the proposed revenue requirement; and,

• authorization to implement a three-year formula rate plan with a midpoint return on common equity of 10.4%, plus or minus 75 basis points (the deadband), that would provide a means for the annual re-setting of rates (commencing with calendar year 2013 as its first test year), that would include a mechanism to recover incremental transmission revenue requirement on the basis of a forward-looking test year as compared to the initial base year of 2014 with an annual true-up, that would retain the primary aspects of the prior formula rate plan, including a 60% to customers/40% to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana sharing mechanism for earnings outside the deadband, and a capacity rider mechanism that would permit recovery of incremental capacity additions approved by the LPSC.

Following a hearing before an ALJ and the ALJ’s issuance of a Report of Proceedings, in December 2013 the LPSC approved an unopposed settlement of the proceeding. Major terms of the settlement included approval of a three-year formula rate plan (effective for test years 2014-2016) modeled after the formula rate plan in effect for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana for 2011, including the following: (1) a midpoint return on equity of 9.95% plus or minus 80 basis points, with 60/40 sharing of earnings outside of the bandwidth; (2) recovery outside of the sharing mechanism for the non-fuel MISO-related costs, additional capacity revenue requirement, extraordinary items, such as the Ninemile 6 project, and certain special recovery items; (3) three-year amortization of costs to achieve savings associated with the human capital management strategic imperative, with savings to be reflected as they are realized in subsequent years; (4) eight-year amortization of costs incurred in connection with potential development of a new nuclear unit at River Bend, without carrying costs, beginning December 2014, provided, however, that amortization of these costs shall not result in a future rate increase; (5) no change in rates related to test year 2013, except with respect to recovery of the non-fuel MISO-related costs and any changes to the additional capacity revenue requirement; and (6) no increase in rates related to test year 2014, except for those items eligible for recovery outside of the earnings sharing mechanism. Existing depreciation rates will not change. Implementation of rate changes for items recoverable outside of the earnings sharing mechanism occurred in December 2014.

Pursuant to the rate case settlement approved by the LPSC in December 2013, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted a compliance filing in May 2014 reflecting the effects of the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism revenue requirement and adjustment of the additional capacity mechanism. In November 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted an additional compliance filing updating the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism for the most recent actual data. Based on this updated filing, a net increase of $5.8 million in formula rate plan revenue to be collected over nine months was implemented in December 2014. The compliance filings are subject to LPSC review in accordance with the review process set forth in Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s formula rate plan.

In November 2011 the LPSC approved a one-year extension of Entergy Louisiana’s formula rate plan.  In May 2012, Entergy Louisiana made its formula rate plan filing with the LPSC for the 2011 test year.  The filing reflected a 9.63% earned return on common equity, which is within the earnings bandwidth and resulted in no cost of service rate change under the formula rate plan.  The filing also reflected an $18.1 million rate increase for the incremental capacity rider.  In August 2012, Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised filing that reflected an earned return on common equity of 10.38%, which is still within the earnings bandwidth, resulting in no cost of service rate change.  The revised filing also indicated that an increase of $15.9 million should be reflected in the incremental capacity rider.  The rate change was implemented, subject to refund, effective for bills rendered the first billing cycle of September 2012.  Subsequently, in December 2012, Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised evaluation report that reflected two items: 1) a $17 million reduction for the first-year capacity charges for the purchase by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana from Entergy Louisiana of one-third of Acadia Unit 2 capacity and energy, and 2) an $88 million increase for the first-year retail revenue requirement associated with the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, which was in-service in December 2012.  These rate changes were implemented, subject to refund, effective with the first billing cycle of January 2013.  In April 2013, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint report resolving the 2011 test year formula rate plan and recovery related to the Grand Gulf uprate. This report was approved by the LPSC in April 2013.

In connection with its decision to extend the formula rate plan to the 2011 test year, the LPSC required that a base rate case be filed by Entergy Louisiana, and the required filing was made on February 15, 2013. The filing anticipated Entergy Louisiana’s integration into MISO. In the filing Entergy Louisiana requested, among other relief:

• authorization to increase the revenue it collects from customers by approximately $145 million (which does not take into account a revenue offset of approximately $2 million resulting from a proposed increase for those customers taking service under the Qualifying Facility Standby Service);

• an authorized return on common equity of 10.4%;

• authorization to increase depreciation rates embedded in the proposed revenue requirement; and

• authorization to implement a three-year formula rate plan with a midpoint return on common equity of 10.4%, plus or minus 75 basis points (the deadband), that would provide a means for the annual re-setting of rates (commencing with calendar year 2013 as its first test year), that would include a mechanism to recover incremental transmission revenue requirement on the basis of a forward-looking test year as compared to the initial base year of 2014 with an annual true-up, that would retain the primary aspects of the prior formula rate plan, including a 60% to customers/40% to Entergy Louisiana sharing mechanism for earnings outside the deadband, and a capacity rider mechanism that would permit recovery of incremental capacity additions approved by the LPSC.

Following a hearing before an ALJ and the ALJ’s issuance of a Report of Proceedings, in December 2013 the LPSC approved an unopposed settlement of the proceeding. The settlement provided for a $10 million rate increase effective with the first billing cycle of December 2014. Major terms of the settlement included approval of a three-year formula rate plan (effective for test years 2014-2016) modeled after the formula rate plan in effect for Entergy Louisiana for 2011, including the following: (1) a midpoint return on equity of 9.95% plus or minus 80 basis points, with 60/40 sharing of earnings outside of the bandwidth; (2) recovery outside of the sharing mechanism for the non-fuel MISO-related costs, additional capacity revenue requirement, extraordinary items, such as the Ninemile 6 project, and certain special recovery items; (3) three-year amortization of costs to achieve savings associated with the human capital management strategic imperative, with savings reflected as they are realized in subsequent years; (4) eight-year amortization of costs incurred in connection with potential development of a new nuclear unit at River Bend, without carrying costs, beginning December 2014, provided, however, that amortization of these costs shall not result in a future rate increase; (5) recovery of non-fuel MISO-related costs and any changes to the additional capacity revenue requirement related to test year 2013 effective with the first billing cycle of December 2014; and (6) a cumulative $30 million cap on cost of service increases over the three-year formula rate plan cycle, except for those items outside of the sharing mechanism. Existing depreciation rates will not change.

Pursuant to the rate case settlement approved by the LPSC in December 2013, Entergy Louisiana submitted a compliance filing in May 2014 reflecting the effects of the $10 million agreed-upon increase in formula rate plan revenue, the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism revenue requirement, and the adjustment of the additional capacity mechanism. In November 2014, Entergy Louisiana submitted an additional compliance filing updating the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism for the most recent actual data, as well as providing for a refund and prospective reduction in rates for the true-up of the estimated revenue requirement for the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project. Based on this updated filing, a net increase of $41.6 million in formula rate plan revenue to be collected over nine months was implemented in December 2014. The compliance filings are subject to LPSC review in accordance with the review process set forth in Entergy Louisiana’s formula rate plan. Additionally, the adjustments of rates made related to the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project included in the December 2014 compliance filing are subject to final true-up following completion of the LPSC’s determination regarding the prudence of the project. LPSC staff identified five issues, of which two remain. The remaining issues pertain to Entergy Louisiana’s method of collecting the agreed-upon $10 million increase and the level of recovery of investment related to the Grand Gulf uprate. No procedural schedule has been established, however, to address these remaining issues. The final issue raised by the LPSC staff pertains to the appropriate level of refunds related to the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project. That issue will be resolved in connection with the Waterford 3 prudence review proceedings discussed below.

Waterford 3 Replacement Steam Generator Project

Following the completion of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, the LPSC undertook a prudence review in connection with a filing made by Entergy Louisiana in April 2013 with regard to the following aspects of the replacement project: 1) project management; 2) cost controls; 3) success in achieving stated objectives; 4) the costs of the replacement project; and 5) the outage length and replacement power costs. In July 2014 the LPSC Staff filed testimony recommending potential project and replacement power cost disallowances of up to $71 million, citing a need for further explanation or documentation from Entergy Louisiana.  An intervenor filed testimony recommending disallowance of $141 million of incremental project costs, claiming the steam generator fabricator was imprudent.  Entergy Louisiana provided further documentation and explanation requested by the LPSC staff. An evidentiary hearing was held in December 2014. At the hearing the parties maintained the positions reflected in pre-filed testimony. Entergy Louisiana believes that the replacement steam generator costs were prudently incurred and applicable legal principles support their recovery in rates.  Nevertheless, Entergy Louisiana recorded a write-off of $16 million of Waterford 3’s plant balance in December 2014 because of the uncertainty at the time associated with the resolution of the prudence review. In December 2015 the ALJ issued a proposed recommendation, which was subsequently finalized, concluding that Entergy Louisiana prudently managed the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, including the selection, use, and oversight of contractors, and could not reasonably have anticipated the damage to the steam generators. Nevertheless, the ALJ concluded that Entergy Louisiana was liable for the conduct of its contractor and subcontractor and, therefore, recommended a disallowance of $67 million in capital costs. Additionally, the ALJ concluded that Entergy Louisiana did not sufficiently justify the incurrence of $2 million in replacement power costs during the replacement outage. Although the ALJ’s recommendation has yet to be considered by the LPSC, after considering the progress of the proceeding in light of the ALJ recommendation, Entergy Louisiana recorded in the fourth quarter 2015 approximately $77 million in charges, including a $45 million asset write-off and a $32 million regulatory charge, to reflect that a portion of the assets associated with the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project is no longer probable of recovery. Entergy Louisiana maintains that the ALJ’s recommendation contains significant factual and legal errors.

Ninemile 6

In July 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed stipulation with the LPSC that estimated a first year revenue requirement associated with Ninemile 6 and provided a mechanism to update the revenue requirement as the in-service date approached, which was subsequently approved by the LPSC. In late-December 2014, roughly contemporaneous with the unit's placement in service, a final updated estimated revenue requirement of $26.8 million for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and $51.1 million for Entergy Louisiana was filed. The December 2014 estimate forms the basis of rates implemented effective with the first billing cycle of January 2015. In July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a compliance filing including an estimate at completion, inclusive of interconnection costs and transmission upgrades, of approximately $648 million, or $76 million less than originally estimated, along with other project details and supporting evidence, to enable the LPSC to review the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s management of the project. A hearing is scheduled in March 2016.

Union Power Station

In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed its application with the LPSC for approval of the acquisition and cost recovery of two power blocks of the Union Power Station for an expected base purchase price of approximately $237 million per power block, subject to adjustments. In September 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana agreed to settlement terms with all parties for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s purchase of the two power blocks. In October 2015 the LPSC voted unanimously to approve the uncontested settlement which finds, among other things, that acquisition of Power Blocks 3 and 4 is in the public interest and, therefore, prudent. The business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana received regulatory approval and closed in October 2015 making Entergy Louisiana the named purchaser of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station.

Business Combination

In connection with the approval of the business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana, the LPSC authorized the filing of a single, joint formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. The joint evaluation report was filed in September 2015 and reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.09%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following adjustments are required under the formula rate plan, however: a decrease in the additional capacity mechanism for Entergy Louisiana of $17.8 million; an increase in the additional capacity mechanism for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana of $4.3 million; and a reduction of $5.5 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism, to collect approximately $35.7 million on a combined-company basis. Under the order approving the business combination, following completion of the prescribed review period, rates were implemented with the first billing cycle of December 2015, subject to refund. In November 2015, the LPSC staff filed objections, corrections, and comments identifying several issues for potential rate adjustments, including: preservation of previously-raised issues; the implementation of the $10 million increase in annual formula rate plan revenue over abbreviated rate-effective period; the level of adjustment to rates for the extended power uprate at System Energy, as well as asserting a general reservation of rights for further review of adjustments related to Ninemile 6 and the Waterford 3 provision for rate refund; change to gross plant, depreciation, and net plant components of rate base; regulatory debits and credits; adjustment for business combination expenses and the implementation of certain guaranteed customer credits. See “Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination” below for further discussion of the business combination.

Retail Rates - Gas

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

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

In accordance with the settlement of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2012, in August 2014 Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted for consideration a proposal for implementation of an infrastructure rider to recover expenditures associated with strategic plant investment and relocation projects mandated by local governments. After review by the LPSC staff and inclusion of certain customer safeguards required by the LPSC staff, in December 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the LPSC staff submitted a joint settlement for implementation of an accelerated gas pipe replacement program providing for the replacement of approximately 100 miles of pipe over the next ten years, as well as relocation of certain existing pipe resulting from local government-related infrastructure projects, and for a rider to recover the investment associated with these projects. The rider allows for recovery of approximately $65 million over ten years. The rider recovery will be adjusted on a quarterly basis to include actual investment incurred for the prior quarter and is subject to the following conditions, among others: a ten-year term; application of any earnings in excess of 10.45% as an offset to the revenue requirement of the infrastructure rider; adherence to a specified spending plan, within plus or minus 20% annually; annual filings comparing actual versus planned rider spending with actual spending and explanation of variances exceeding 10%; and an annual true-up. The joint settlement was approved by the LPSC in January 2015. Implementation of the infrastructure rider commenced with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of April 2015.

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 resulted 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 was implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015.

In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2015. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 10.22%, which is within the authorized bandwidth, therefore requiring no change in rates. Absent approval of an extension by the LPSC, test year 2015 is the final year under the current gas rate stabilization plan. In February 2016, however, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the terms of the gas rate stabilization plan for an additional three-year term.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Formula Rate Plan Filings

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

In June 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed its first general rate case before the MPSC in almost 12 years.  The rate filing laid out Entergy Mississippi’s plans for improving reliability, modernizing the grid, maintaining its workforce, stabilizing rates, utilizing new technologies, and attracting new industry to its service territory.  Entergy Mississippi requested a net increase in revenue of $49 million for bills rendered during calendar year 2015, including $30 million resulting from new depreciation rates to update the estimated service life of assets.  In addition, the filing proposed, among other things: 1) realigning cost recovery of the Attala and Hinds power plant acquisitions from the power management rider to base rates; 2) including certain MISO-related revenues and expenses in the power management rider; 3) power management rider changes that reflect the changes in costs and revenues that will accompany Entergy Mississippi’s withdrawal from participation in the System Agreement; and 4) a formula rate plan forward test year to allow for known changes in expenses and revenues for the rate effective period.  Entergy Mississippi proposed maintaining the current authorized return on common equity of 10.59%. 

In October 2014, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into and filed joint stipulations that addressed the majority of issues in the proceeding. The stipulations provided for:

• an approximate $16 million net increase in revenues, which reflected an agreed upon 10.07% return on common equity;

• revision of Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan by providing Entergy Mississippi with the ability to reflect known and measurable changes to historical rate base and certain expense amounts; resolving uncertainty around and obviating the need for an additional rate filing in connection with Entergy Mississippi’s withdrawal from participation in the System Agreement; updating depreciation rates; and moving costs associated with the Attala and Hinds generating plants from the power management rider to base rates;

• recovery of non-fuel MISO-related costs through a separate rider for that purpose;

• a deferral of $6 million in other operation and maintenance expenses associated with the Baxter Wilson outage and a determination that the regulatory asset should accrue carrying costs, with amortization of the regulatory asset over two years beginning in February 2015, and a provision that the capital costs will be reflected in rate base. See Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Baxter Wilson outage; and

• consolidation of the new nuclear generation development costs proceeding with the general rate case proceeding for hearing purposes and a determination that Entergy Mississippi would not further pursue, except as noted below, recovery of the costs that were approved for deferral by the MPSC in November 2011. The stipulations state, however, that, if Entergy Mississippi decides to move forward with nuclear development in Mississippi, it can at that time re-present for consideration by the MPSC only those costs directly associated with the existing early site permit (ESP), to the extent that the costs are verifiable and prudent and the ESP is still valid and relevant to any such option pursued. See “New Nuclear Generation Development Costs - Entergy Mississippi” below for further discussion of the new nuclear generation development costs proceeding and subsequent write-off in 2014 of the regulatory asset related to those costs.

In December 2014 the MPSC issued an order accepting the stipulations in their entirety and approving the revenue adjustments and rate changes effective with February 2015 bills.

Filings with the City Council

(Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans)

In March 2013, Entergy Louisiana filed a rate case for the Algiers area, which is in New Orleans and is regulated by the City Council. Entergy Louisiana requested a rate increase of $13 million over three years, including a 10.4% return on common equity and a formula rate plan mechanism identical to its LPSC request. In January 2014 the City Council Advisors filed direct testimony recommending a rate increase of $5.56 million over three years, including an 8.13% return on common equity. In June 2014 the City Council unanimously approved a settlement that includes the following:

• a $9.3 million base rate revenue increase to be phased in on a levelized basis over four years;

• recovery of an additional $853 thousand annually through a MISO recovery rider; and

• the adoption of a four-year formula rate plan requiring the filing of annual evaluation reports in May of each year, commencing May 2015, with resulting rates being implemented in October of each year. The formula rate plan includes a midpoint target authorized return on common equity of 9.95% with a +/- 40 basis point bandwidth.

The rate increase was effective with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of July 2014. Additional compliance filings were made with the Council in October 2014 for approval of the form of certain rate riders, including among others, a Ninemile 6 non-fuel cost recovery interim rider, allowing for contemporaneous recovery of capacity costs related to the commencement of commercial operation of the Ninemile 6 generating unit and a purchased power capacity cost recovery rider. The monthly Ninemile 6 cost recovery interim rider was implemented in December 2014 to initially collect $915 thousand from Entergy Louisiana customers in the Algiers area. See “Algiers Asset Transfer ” below for discussion of the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that serve Algiers customers.

(Entergy New Orleans)

Formula Rate Plan

In April 2009 the City Council approved a three-year formula rate plan for Entergy New Orleans, with terms including an 11.1% benchmark electric return on common equity (ROE) with a +/-40 basis point bandwidth and a 10.75% benchmark gas ROE with a +/-50 basis point bandwidth.  Earnings outside the bandwidth reset to the midpoint benchmark ROE, with rates changing on a prospective basis depending on whether Entergy New Orleans was over- or under-earning.  The formula rate plan also included a recovery mechanism for City Council-approved capacity additions, plus provisions for extraordinary cost changes and force majeure events.

In May 2012, Entergy New Orleans filed its electric and gas formula rate plan evaluation reports for the 2011 test year.  Subsequent adjustments agreed upon with the City Council Advisors indicate a $4.9 million electric base revenue increase and a $0.05 million gas base revenue increase as necessary under the formula rate plan.  As part of the original filing, Entergy New Orleans also requested to increase annual funding for its storm reserve by approximately $5.7 million for five years.  On September 26, 2012, Entergy New Orleans made a filing with the City Council that implemented the $4.9 million electric formula rate plan rate increase and the $0.05 million gas formula rate plan rate increase.  The new rates were effective with the first billing cycle in October 2012.  In August 2013 the City Council unanimously approved a settlement of all issues in the formula rate plan proceeding.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Entergy New Orleans implemented an approximately $1.625 million net decrease to the electric rates that were in effect prior to the electric rate increase implemented in October 2012, with no change in gas rates.  Entergy New Orleans refunded to customers approximately $6 million over the four-month period from September 2013 through December 2013 to make the electric rate decrease effective as of the first billing cycle of October 2012.  Entergy New Orleans had previously recorded provisions for the majority of the refund to customers, but recorded an additional $1.1 million provision in second quarter 2013 as a result of the settlement. Entergy New Orleans’s formula rate plan ended with the 2011 test year and has not been extended.  

See “Algiers Asset Transfer ” below for discussion of the Algiers asset transfer. As a provision of the settlement agreement approved by the City Council in May 2015 providing for the Algiers asset transfer, it was agreed that, with limited exceptions, no action may be taken with respect to Entergy New Orleans’s base rates until rates are implemented from a base rate case that must be filed for its electric and gas operations in 2018. This provision eliminated the formula rate plan applicable to Algiers operations. The limited exceptions include continued implementation of the remaining two years of the four-year phased-in rate increase for its operations in the Algiers area and certain exceptional cost increases or decreases in its base revenue requirement. An additional provision of the settlement agreement allows for continued recovery of the revenue requirement associated with the capacity and energy from Ninemile 6 received by Entergy New Orleans under a power purchase agreement with Entergy Louisiana (Algiers PPA). The settlement authorizes Entergy New Orleans to recover the remaining revenue requirement related to the Algiers PPA through base rates charged to Algiers customers. The settlement also provided for continued implementation of the Algiers MISO recovery rider.

In addition to the Algiers PPA, Entergy New Orleans has a separate power purchase agreement with Entergy Louisiana for 20% of the capacity and energy of the Ninemile Unit 6 generating station (Ninemile PPA), which commenced operation in December 2014. Initially, recovery of the non-fuel costs associated with the Ninemile PPA was authorized through a special Ninemile 6 rider billed to only Entergy New Orleans customers outside of Algiers.

In August 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to proceed with the acquisition of Union Power Block 1, with an expected base purchase price of approximately $237 million, subject to adjustments, and seeking approval of the recovery of the associated costs. In November 2015 the City Council issued written resolutions and an order approving an agreement in principle between Entergy New Orleans and City Council advisors providing that the purchase of Union Power Block 1 and related assets by Entergy New Orleans is prudent and in the public interest. The City Council authorized expansion of the special Ninemile 6 rider, discussed above, to cover the non-fuel purchased power from Ninemile 6 as well as the revenue requirement associated with the acquisition of Union Power Block 1, upon closing of the transaction.

A 2008 rate case settlement included $3.1 million per year in electric rates to fund the Energy Smart energy efficiency programs.  In September 2009 the City Council approved the energy efficiency programs filed by Entergy New Orleans.  The rate settlement provides an incentive for Entergy New Orleans to meet or exceed energy savings targets set by the City Council and provides a mechanism for Entergy New Orleans to recover lost contribution to fixed costs associated with the energy savings generated from the energy efficiency programs. In October 2013 the City Council approved the extension of the current Energy Smart program through December 2014. The City Council approved the use of $3.5 million of rough production cost equalization funds for program costs. In addition, Entergy New Orleans will be allowed to recover its lost contribution to fixed costs and to earn an incentive for meeting program goals. In January 2015 the City Council approved extending the Energy Smart program through March 2015 and using $1.2 million of rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs for the extended period. Additionally, the City Council approved funding for the Energy Smart 2 programs from April 2015 through March 2017 using the remainder of the approximately $12.8 million of 2014 rough production cost equalization funds, and with any remaining costs being recovered through the fuel adjustment clause. This funding methodology was modified in November 2015 when the City Council directed Entergy New Orleans to use a combination of guaranteed customer savings related to a prior agreement with the City Council and rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs prior to recovering any costs through the fuel adjustment clause.

Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas)

Retail Rates

2011 Rate Case

In November 2011, Entergy Texas filed a rate case requesting a $112 million base rate increase reflecting a 10.6% return on common equity based on an adjusted June 2011 test year.  The rate case also proposed a purchased power recovery rider.  On January 12, 2012, the PUCT voted not to address the purchased power recovery rider in the current rate case, but the PUCT voted to set a baseline in the rate case proceeding that would be applicable if a purchased power capacity rider is approved in a separate proceeding.  In April 2012 the PUCT Staff filed direct testimony recommending a base rate increase of $66 million and a 9.6% return on common equity.  The PUCT Staff, however, subsequently filed a statement of position in the proceeding indicating that it was still evaluating the position it would ultimately take in the case regarding Entergy Texas’s recovery of purchased power capacity costs and Entergy Texas’s proposal to defer its MISO transition expenses.  In April 2012, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony indicating a revised request for a $105 million base rate increase.  A hearing was held in late-April through early-May 2012.

In September 2012 the PUCT issued an order approving a $28 million rate increase, effective July 2012.  The order includes a finding that “a return on common equity (ROE) of 9.80 percent will allow [Entergy Texas] a reasonable opportunity to earn a reasonable return on invested capital.”  The order also provides for increases in depreciation rates and the annual storm reserve accrual.  The order also reduced Entergy Texas’s proposed purchased power capacity costs, stating that they are not known and measurable; reduced Entergy Texas’s regulatory assets associated with Hurricane Rita; excluded from rate recovery capitalized financially-based incentive compensation; included $1.6 million of MISO transition expense in base rates, and reduced Entergy’s Texas’s fuel reconciliation recovery by $4 million because it disagreed with the line-loss factor used in the calculation.  After considering the progress of the proceeding in light of the PUCT order, Entergy Texas recorded in the third quarter 2012 an approximate $24 million charge to recognize that assets associated with Hurricane Rita, financially-based incentive compensation, and fuel recovery are no longer probable of recovery.  Entergy Texas continues to believe that it is entitled to recover these prudently incurred costs, however, and it filed a motion for rehearing regarding these and several other issues in the PUCT’s order on October 4, 2012.  Several other parties also filed motions for rehearing of the PUCT’s order.  The PUCT subsequently denied rehearing of substantive issues.  Several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. A hearing was held in July 2014. In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced above, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Briefs were filed by the appealing and responding parties in the first half of 2015. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. The appeal is currently pending.

2013 Rate Case

In September 2013, Entergy Texas filed a rate case requesting a $38.6 million base rate increase reflecting a 10.4% return on common equity based on an adjusted test year ending March 31, 2013. The rate case also proposed (1) a rough production cost equalization adjustment rider recovering Entergy Texas’s payment to Entergy New Orleans to achieve rough production cost equalization based on calendar year 2012 production costs and (2) a rate case expense rider recovering the cost of the 2013 rate case and certain costs associated with previous rate cases. The rate case filing also included a request to reconcile $0.9 billion of fuel and purchased power costs and fuel revenues covering the period July 2011 through March 2013. The fuel reconciliation also reflects special circumstances fuel cost recovery of approximately $22 million of purchased power capacity costs. In January 2014 the PUCT staff filed direct testimony recommending a retail rate reduction of $0.3 million and a 9.2% return on common equity. In March 2014, Entergy Texas filed an Agreed Motion for Interim Rates. The motion explained that the parties to this proceeding have agreed that Entergy Texas should be allowed to implement new rates reflecting an $18.5 million base rate increase, effective for usage on and after April 1, 2014, as well as recovery of charges for rough production cost equalization and rate case expenses. In March 2014 the State Office of Administrative Hearings, the body assigned to hear the case, approved the motion. In April 2014, Entergy Texas filed a unanimous stipulation in this case. Among other things, the stipulation provides for an $18.5 million base rate increase, provides for recovery over three years of the calendar year 2012 rough production cost equalization charges and rate case expenses, and states a 9.8% return on common equity. In addition, the stipulation finalizes the fuel and purchased power reconciliation covering the period July 2011 through March 2013, with the parties stipulating an immaterial fuel disallowance. No special circumstances recovery of purchased power capacity costs was allowed. In April 2014 the State Office of Administrative Hearings remanded the case back to the PUCT for final processing. In May 2014 the PUCT approved the stipulation. No motions for rehearing were filed during the statutory rehearing period.

2015 Rate Case

In June 2015, Entergy Texas filed a rate case that included pro forma adjustments to reflect the proposed acquisition of Union Power Station Power Block 1, which is one of four units that comprise the Union Power Station near El Dorado, Arkansas. Previously in 2015 Entergy Texas made a filing with the PUCT requesting that it grant a certificate of convenience and necessity for the Union acquisition. In July 2015 the PUCT requested briefing on legal and policy issues related to, among other things, the propriety of rate recovery for the Union Power transaction given the uncertainty of the actual closing date of the transaction and the commencement of the rate year, as well as Entergy Texas’s requirement for acceptable rate treatment as a condition to closing the transaction. Also in July 2015, in connection with the requested briefing, the PUCT staff and certain parties filed briefs concluding that Entergy Texas should not be permitted recovery for the Union Power Station purchase in the rate case. Based on the opposition to the acquisition of the power block, Entergy Texas determined it was appropriate to seek to dismiss the certificate of convenience and necessity filing and withdraw the rate case. In July 2015, Entergy Texas filed its notice of withdrawal of its base rate case and the ALJs in the case dismissed the case from the dockets of the State Office of Administrative Hearings and the PUCT. In the third quarter 2015, Entergy Texas wrote off $4.7 million in rate case expenses and acquisition costs related to the proposed Union Power Station acquisition.

Other Filings

In September 2014, Entergy Texas filed for a distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider based on a law that was passed in 2011 allowing for the recovery of increases in capital costs associated with distribution plant. Entergy Texas requested collection of approximately $7 million annually from retail customers. The parties reached a unanimous settlement authorizing recovery of $3.6 million annually commencing with usage on and after January 1, 2015. A State Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ issued an order in December 2014 authorizing this recovery on an interim basis and remanded the case to the PUCT. In February 2015 the PUCT entered a final order, making the settlement final and the interim rates permanent. In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed to amend its distribution cost recovery factor rider. Entergy Texas requested an increase in recovery under the rider of $6.5 million, for a total collection of $10.1 million annually from retail customers. In October 2015 intervenors and PUCT staff filed testimony opposing, in part, Entergy Texas’s request. In November 2015 Entergy Texas and the parties filed an unopposed settlement agreement and supporting documents. The settlement established an annual revenue requirement of $8.65 million for the amended DCRF rider, with the resulting rates effective for usage on and after January 1, 2016. The PUCT approved the settlement agreement in February 2016.

In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony was filed in November 2015, with the PUCT staff and other parties proposing various disallowances that would reduce the requested increase. The largest remaining single disallowance is $3.4 million which would impose a load growth adjustment on Entergy Texas’s TCRF rider. A hearing on the merits was held in December 2015. A proposal for decision from the ALJ is expected in first quarter 2016.

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination

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 application, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana identified potential benefits, including enhanced economic and customer diversity, enhanced geographic and supply diversity, and greater administrative efficiency. In the initial proceedings with the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana estimated that the business combination could produce up to $128 million in measurable customer benefits during the first ten years following the transaction’s close including proposed guaranteed customer credits of $97 million in the first nine years.  In April 2015 the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony in the LPSC business combination proceeding. The testimony recommended an extensive set of conditions that would be required in order to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The LPSC staff’s primary concern appeared to be potential shifting in fuel costs between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. In May 2015, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony. After the testimony was filed with the LPSC, the parties engaged in settlement discussions that ultimately led to the execution of an uncontested stipulated settlement (“stipulated settlement”), which was filed with the LPSC in July 2015. Through the stipulated settlement, the parties agreed to terms upon which to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The stipulated settlement, which was either joined, or unopposed, by all parties to the LPSC proceeding, represents a compromise of stakeholder positions and was the result of an extensive period of analysis, discovery, and negotiation. The stipulated settlement provides $107 million in guaranteed customer benefits during the first nine years following the transaction’s close. Additionally, the combined company will honor the 2013 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana rate case settlements, including the commitments that (1) there will be no rate increase for legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers for the 2014 test year, and (2) through the 2016 test year formula rate plan, Entergy Louisiana (as a combined entity) will not raise rates by more than $30 million, net of the $10 million rate increase included in the Entergy Louisiana legacy formula rate plan. The stipulated settlement also describes the process for implementing a fuel-tracking mechanism that is designed to address potential effects arising from the shifting of fuel costs between legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers as a result of the combination of those companies’ fuel adjustment clauses. Specifically, the fuel tracker would reallocate such cost shifts as between legacy customers of the companies on an after-the-fact basis, and the calculation of the fuel tracker will be submitted annually in a compliance filing. The stipulated settlement also provides that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana are permitted to defer certain external costs that were incurred to achieve the business combination’s customer benefits. The deferred amount, which shall not exceed $25 million, will be subject to a prudence review and amortized over a 10-year period. In 2015 deferrals of $16 million for these external costs were recorded. A hearing on the stipulated settlement in the LPSC proceeding was held in July 2015. In August 2015 the LPSC approved the business combination.

In April 2015 the FERC approved applications requesting authorization for the business combination. In August 2015 the NRC approved the applications for the River Bend and Waterford 3 license transfers as part of the steps to complete the business combination.

On October 1, 2015, the businesses formerly conducted by Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana were combined into a single public utility. With the completion of the business combination, Entergy Louisiana holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed the liabilities, of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The combination was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control. The effect of the business combination has been retrospectively applied to Entergy Louisiana's financial statements that are presented in this report. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the customer credits resulting from the business combination.

Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans)

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 supported the provision of service to Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers assets transfer. In May 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement authorizing the Algiers assets transfer and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in May 2015. On September 1, 2015, Entergy Louisiana transferred its Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans for a purchase price of approximately $85 million, subject to closing adjustments. Entergy New Orleans paid Entergy Louisiana $59.6 million, including final true-ups, from available cash and issued a note payable to Entergy Louisiana in the amount of $25.5 million. See Note 1 to the financial statements for a discussion of the accounting for the Algiers asset transfer and the basis of presentation for the Entergy New Orleans’s financial statements presented in this report.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

The Utility operating companies historically have engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which is a rate schedule that has been approved by the FERC.  Certain of the Utility operating companies’ retail regulators and other parties are pursuing litigation involving the System Agreement at the FERC.  The proceedings include challenges to the allocation of costs as defined by the System Agreement and allegations of imprudence by the Utility operating companies in their execution of their obligations under the System Agreement.

In June 2005 the FERC issued a decision in System Agreement litigation that had been commenced by the LPSC, and essentially affirmed its decision in a December 2005 order on rehearing.  The FERC decision concluded, among other things, that:

• The System Agreement no longer roughly equalizes total production costs among the Utility operating companies.

• In order to reach rough production cost equalization, the FERC imposed a bandwidth remedy by which each company’s total annual production costs will have to be within +/- 11% of Entergy System average total annual production costs.

• In calculating the production costs for this purpose under the FERC’s order, output from the Vidalia hydroelectric power plant will not reflect the actual Vidalia price for the year but is priced at that year’s average price paid by Entergy Louisiana for the exchange of electric energy under Service Schedule MSS-3 of the System Agreement, thereby reducing the amount of Vidalia costs reflected in the comparison of the Utility operating companies’ total production costs.

• The remedy ordered by FERC in 2005 required no refunds and became effective based on calendar year 2006 production costs and the first reallocation payments were made in 2007.

The FERC’s decision reallocates total production costs of the Utility operating companies whose relative total production costs expressed as a percentage of Entergy System average production costs are outside an upper or lower bandwidth.  Under the current circumstances, this will be accomplished by payments from Utility operating companies whose production costs are more than 11% below Entergy System average production costs to Utility operating companies whose production costs are more than the Entergy System average production cost, with payments going first to those Utility operating companies whose total production costs are farthest above the Entergy System average.

The financial consequences of the FERC’s decision are determined by the total production cost of each Utility operating company, which are affected by the mix of solid fuel and gas-fired generation available to each company and the costs of natural gas and purchased power.  Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Texas, and Entergy Mississippi are more dependent upon gas-fired generation sources than Entergy Arkansas or Entergy New Orleans.  Of these, Entergy Arkansas is the least dependent upon gas-fired generation sources.  Therefore, increases in natural gas prices generally increased the amount by which Entergy Arkansas’s total production costs were below the Entergy System average production costs.

The LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers appealed the FERC’s December 2005 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  Entergy and the City of New Orleans intervened in the various appeals.  The D.C. Circuit issued its decision in April 2008.  The D.C. Circuit concluded that the FERC’s orders had failed to adequately explain both its conclusion that it was prohibited from ordering refunds for the 20-month period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003 and its determination to implement the bandwidth remedy commencing on January 1, 2006, rather than June 1, 2005.  The D.C. Circuit remanded the case to the FERC for further proceedings on these issues.

In October 2011, the FERC issued an order addressing the D.C. Circuit remand on these two issues.  On the first issue, the FERC concluded that it did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-month period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003.  Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, which is discussed in a separate section below, the FERC concluded that the refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in that proceeding.  On the second issue, the FERC reversed its prior decision and ordered that the prospective bandwidth remedy begin on June 1, 2005 (the date of its initial order in the proceeding) rather than January 1, 2006, as it had previously ordered.  Pursuant to the October 2011 order, Entergy was required to calculate the additional bandwidth payments for the period June - December 2005 utilizing the bandwidth formula tariff prescribed by the FERC that was filed in a December 2006 compliance filing and accepted by the FERC in an April 2007 order.  As is the case with bandwidth remedy payments, these payments and receipts will ultimately be paid by Utility operating company customers to other Utility operating company customers. 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 an 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. In October 2015 the FERC issued three orders related to the commencement of the remedy on June 1, 2005 and the inclusion of interest on the amount for the period June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. Specifically, the FERC rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of its decision to include interest on the amount for the seven-month period. The FERC also rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of the order rejecting the compliance filing with regard to the issue of interest. Finally, the FERC set for hearing and settlement procedures the 2014 compliance filing that included the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. In setting the compliance filing for hearing, the FERC rejected the APSC’s protest that Entergy Arkansas should not be subject to the filing because Entergy Arkansas would be making the payments during a period following its exit from the System Agreement. The hearing on the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 is scheduled to occur in July 2016.

In December 2011, Entergy filed with the FERC its compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s October 2011 order.  The filing shows the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$156
Entergy Louisiana	($75)
Entergy Mississippi	($33)
Entergy New Orleans	($5)
Entergy Texas	($43)

Entergy Arkansas made its payment in January 2012.  In February 2012, Entergy Arkansas filed for an interim adjustment to its production cost allocation rider requesting that the $156 million payment be collected from customers over the 22-month period from March 2012 through December 2013.  In March 2012 the APSC issued an order stating that the payment can be recovered from retail customers through the production cost allocation rider, subject to refund.  The LPSC and the APSC have requested rehearing of the FERC’s October 2011 order.  In December 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for a writ of mandamus at the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In its petition, the LPSC requested that the D.C. Circuit issue an order compelling the FERC to issue a final order on pending rehearing requests. In January 2014 the D.C. Circuit denied the LPSC’s petition. The APSC, the LPSC, the PUCT, and other parties intervened in the December 2011 compliance filing proceeding, and the APSC and the LPSC also filed protests.

In February 2014 the FERC issued a rehearing order addressing its October 2011 order. The FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing on the issues of whether the bandwidth remedy should be made effective earlier than June 1, 2005, and whether refunds should be ordered for the 20-month refund effective period. The FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request on the issue of interest on the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period, requiring that interest be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date those bandwidth payments/receipts are made. Also in February 2014 the FERC issued an order rejecting the December 2011 compliance filing that calculated the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. The FERC order required a new compliance filing that calculates the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period based on monthly data for the seven individual months including interest pursuant to the February 2014 rehearing order. Entergy has sought rehearing of the February 2014 orders with respect to the FERC’s determinations regarding interest. In April 2014 the LPSC filed a petition for review of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The appeal is pending.

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

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$68
Entergy Louisiana	($10)
Entergy Mississippi	($11)
Entergy New Orleans	$2
Entergy Texas	($49)

These payments were made in May 2014. The LPSC, City Council, and APSC have filed protests.

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

Each May since 2007 Entergy has filed with the FERC the rates to implement the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  These filings show the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies are necessary to achieve rough production cost equalization as defined by the FERC’s orders:

	Payments (Receipts)
	2007			2008			2009			2010			2011			2012			2013			2014
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas		$252			$252			$390			$41			$77			$41			$—			$—
Entergy Louisiana		($211	)		($160	)		($247	)		($22	)		($12	)		($41	)		$—			$—
Entergy Mississippi		($41	)		($20	)		($24	)		($19	)		($40	)		$—			$—			$—
Entergy New Orleans		$—			($7	)		$—			$—			($25	)		$—			($15	)		($15	)
Entergy Texas		($30	)		($65	)		($119	)		$—			$—			$—			$15			$15

The Utility operating companies record, as necessary, accounts payable or accounts receivable to reflect the rough production cost equalization payments and receipts required to implement the FERC’s remedy.  When accounts payable are recorded, a corresponding regulatory asset is recorded for the right to collect the payments from customers. When accounts receivable are recorded, a corresponding regulatory liability is recorded for the obligations to pass the receipts on to customers.  As discussed below, no payments and receipts were required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Entergy Arkansas ceased participating in the System Agreement on December 18, 2013 and was not part of the calendar year 2013 or 2014 production costs calculations.

The APSC has approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Texas is recovering its 2013 rough production cost equalization payment over three years beginning April 2014. Entergy Texas included its 2014 rough production cost equalization payment as component of an interim fuel refund made in 2014. Management believes that any changes in the allocation of production costs resulting from the FERC’s decision and related retail proceedings should result in similar rate changes for retail customers, subject to specific circumstances that have caused trapped costs.  

Comprehensive Bandwidth Recalculation for 2007, 2008, and 2009 Rate Filing Proceedings

In July 2014 the FERC issued four orders in connection with various Service Schedule MSS-3 rough production cost equalization formula compliance filings and rehearing requests. Specifically, the FERC accepted Entergy Services’ revised methodologies for calculating certain cost components of the formula and affirmed its prior ruling requiring interest on the true-up amounts. The FERC directed that a comprehensive recalculation of the formula be performed for the filing years 2007, 2008, and 2009 based on calendar years 2006, 2007, and 2008 production costs. In September 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC its compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts, including interest, among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s orders for the 2007, 2008, and 2009 rate filing proceedings. The filing shows the following additional payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$38
Entergy Louisiana	($38)
Entergy Mississippi	$16
Entergy New Orleans	($1)
Entergy Texas	($15)

Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi made the payments in September and October 2014.

The FERC proceedings that resulted from rate filings made in 2007, 2008, and 2009 have been resolved by various orders issued by the FERC and appellate courts. See below for a discussion of rate filings since 2009 and the comprehensive recalculation filing directed by the FERC in the proceeding related to the 2010 rate filing.

2010 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2009 Production Costs

In May 2010, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2010 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding, and supplemented the filing in September 2010.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC and the City Council, which also filed protests.  In July 2010 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2010, subject to refund, and set the proceeding for hearing and settlement procedures.  Settlement procedures have been terminated, and the ALJ scheduled hearings to begin in March 2011.  Subsequently, in January 2011 the ALJ issued an order directing the parties and FERC Staff to show cause why this proceeding should not be stayed pending the issuance of FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review.  In March 2011 the ALJ issued an order placing this proceeding in abeyance. In October 2013 the FERC issued an order granting clarification and denying rehearing with respect to its October 2011 rehearing order in this proceeding. The FERC clarified that in a bandwidth proceeding parties can challenge erroneous inputs, implementation errors, or prudence of cost inputs, but challenges to the bandwidth formula itself must be raised in a Federal Power Act section 206 complaint or section 205 filing. Subsequently in October 2013 the presiding ALJ lifted the stay order holding in abeyance the hearing previously ordered by the FERC and directing that the remaining issues proceed to a hearing on the merits. The hearing was held in March 2014 and the presiding ALJ issued an initial decision in September 2014. Briefs on exception were filed in October 2014. In December 2015 the FERC issued an order affirming the initial decision in part and rejecting the initial decision in part. Among other things, the December 2015 order directs Entergy Services to submit a compliance filing, the results of which may affect the rough production cost equalization filings made for the June - December 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 test periods. In January 2016 the LPSC, the APSC, and Entergy Services filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s December 2015 order. In February 2016, Entergy Services submitted the compliance filing ordered in the December 2015 order.  The result of the true-up payments and receipts for the recalculation of production costs resulted in the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$2
Entergy Louisiana	$6
Entergy Mississippi	($4)
Entergy New Orleans	($1)
Entergy Texas	($3)

2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs

In May 2011, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2011 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest.  In July 2011 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2011, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review. In January 2014 the LPSC filed a petition for a writ of mandamus at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In its petition, the LPSC requested that the Fifth Circuit issue an order compelling the FERC to issue a final order in several proceedings related to the System Agreement, including the 2011 rate filing based on calendar year 2010 production costs and the 2012 and 2013 rate filings discussed below. In March 2014 the Fifth Circuit rejected the LPSC’s petition for a writ of mandamus. In December 2014 the FERC rescinded its earlier abeyance order and consolidated the 2011 rate filing with the 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs

In May 2012, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2012 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest.  In August 2012 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 2012, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review. In December 2014 the FERC rescinded its earlier abeyance order and consolidated the 2012 rate filing with the 2011, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs

In May 2013, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2013 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest. The City Council intervened and filed comments related to including the outcome of a related FERC proceeding in the 2013 cost equalization calculation. In August 2013 the FERC issued an order accepting the 2013 rates, effective June 1, 2013, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review. In December 2014 the FERC rescinded its earlier abeyance order and consolidated the 2013 Rate Filing with the 2011, 2012, and 2014 Rate Filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs

In May 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2014 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest. The City Council intervened and filed comments. In December 2014 the FERC issued an order accepting the 2014 rates, effective June 1, 2014, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and consolidated the 2014 Rate Filing with the 2011, 2012, and 2013 Rate Filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

Consolidated 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Rate Filing Proceedings

As discussed above, in December 2014 the FERC consolidated the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. 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. In July 2015 the parties filed direct and answering testimony. Among other issues with the pending bandwidth calculations, the LPSC challenged the administration of the accounting for joint account sales of energy in the intra-system bill. In August and September 2015 the parties filed additional rounds of testimony in the consolidated hearing for the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings. In October 2015 the LPSC withdrew its testimony challenging the accounting for joint account sales of energy. The hearings occurred in November 2015, and an initial decision from the ALJ is expected in July 2016.

2015 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2014 Production Costs

In May 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2015 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing showed that no payments and receipts were required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC and City Council intervened and filed comments. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2015 rates for filing, suspended them for a nominal period, to become effective June 1, 2015, as requested, subject to refund, and set them for hearing and settlement judge procedures.

Calendar Year 2015 Production Costs

Entergy preliminarily estimates that no payments and receipts are required in 2016 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2015 production costs. The actual payments/receipts for 2016, based on calendar year 2015 production costs, will not be calculated until the Utility operating companies’ 2015 FERC Form 1s have been filed. Once the calculation is completed, it will be filed at the FERC. The level of any payments and receipts is significantly affected by a number of factors, including, among others, weather, the price of alternative fuels, the operating characteristics of the Entergy System generating fleet, and multiple factors affecting the calculation of the non-fuel related revenue requirement components of the total production costs, such as plant investment. The calculation based on 2015 production costs will be the last rough production cost equalization filing submitted by the Utility operating companies because the System Agreement will terminate at the end of August 2016.

Utility Operating Company Termination of System Agreement Participation

Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi ceased participating in the System Agreement effective December 18, 2013 and November 7, 2015, respectively. Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas will terminate participation in the System Agreement on August 31, 2016, which will result in the termination of the System Agreement in its entirety pursuant to a settlement agreement approved by the FERC in December 2015.

In connection with the System Agreement termination settlement agreement, it was determined that the purchase power agreements, referred to as the jurisdictional separation plan PPAs, between Entergy Texas and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana that were put in place for certain legacy gas units at the time of Entergy Gulf States’s separation into Entergy Texas and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana will terminate effective with System Agreement termination. Similarly, the PPA between Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Texas for the Calcasieu unit also will terminate. Currently, the jurisdictional separation plan PPAs are the means by which Entergy Texas receives payment for its receivable associated with Entergy Louisiana’s Spindletop gas storage facility regulatory asset. As a result of the System Agreement termination settlement agreement, effective with the termination date, Entergy Texas will no longer receive payments from Entergy Louisiana related to the Spindletop storage facility which resulted in a write-off recorded in 2015 by Entergy Texas of $23.5 million ($15.3 million net-of-tax).

Interruptible Load Proceeding

In April 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in the LPSC’s appeal of the FERC’s March 2004 and April 2005 orders related to the treatment under the System Agreement of the Utility operating companies’ interruptible loads.  In its opinion the D.C. Circuit concluded that the FERC (1) acted arbitrarily and capriciously by allowing the Utility operating companies to phase-in the effects of the elimination of the interruptible load over a 12-month period of time; (2) failed to adequately explain why refunds could not be ordered under Section 206(c) of the Federal Power Act; and (3) exercised appropriately its discretion to defer addressing the cost of sulfur dioxide allowances until a later time.  The D.C. Circuit remanded the matter to the FERC for a more considered determination on the issue of refunds.  The FERC issued its order on remand in September 2007, in which it directed Entergy to make a compliance filing removing all interruptible load from the computation of peak load responsibility commencing April 1, 2004 and to issue any necessary refunds to reflect this change.  In addition, the order directed the Utility operating companies to make refunds for the period May 1995 through July 1996.  In November 2007 the Utility operating companies filed a refund report describing the refunds to be issued pursuant to the FERC’s orders.  The LPSC filed a protest to the refund report in December 2007, and the Utility operating companies filed an answer to the protest in January 2008.  The refunds were made in October 2008 by the Utility operating companies that owed refunds to the Utility operating companies that were due a refund under the decision.  The APSC and the Utility operating companies appealed the FERC decisions to the D.C. Circuit.   

Following the filing of petitioners’ initial briefs, the FERC filed a motion requesting the D.C. Circuit hold the appeal of the FERC’s decisions ordering refunds in the interruptible load proceeding in abeyance and remand the record to the FERC.  The D.C. Circuit granted the FERC’s unopposed motion in June 2009.  In December 2009 the FERC established a paper hearing to determine whether the FERC had the authority and, if so, whether it would be appropriate to order refunds resulting from changes in the treatment of interruptible load in the allocation of capacity costs by the Utility operating companies.  In August 2010 the FERC issued an order stating that it has the authority and refunds are appropriate.  The APSC, MPSC, and Entergy requested rehearing of the FERC’s decision.  In June 2011 the FERC issued an order granting rehearing in part and denying rehearing in part, in which the FERC determined to invoke its discretion to deny refunds.  The FERC held that in this case where “the Entergy system as a whole collected the proper level of revenue, but, as was later established, incorrectly allocated peak load responsibility among the various Entergy operating companies….the Commission will apply here our usual practice in such cases, invoking our equitable discretion to not order refunds, notwithstanding our authority to do so.”  The LPSC has requested rehearing of the FERC’s June 2011 decision.  In July 2011 the refunds made in the fourth quarter 2009 described above were reversed. In October 2011 the FERC issued an “Order Establishing Paper Hearing” inviting parties that oppose refunds to file briefs within 30 days addressing the LPSC’s argument that FERC precedent supports refunds under the circumstances present in this proceeding.  Parties that favor refunds were then invited to file reply briefs within 21 days of the date that the initial briefs are due.  Briefs were submitted and the matter is pending.

In September 2010 the FERC had issued an order setting the refund report filed in the proceeding in November 2007 for hearing and settlement judge procedures.  In May 2011, Entergy filed a settlement agreement that resolved all issues relating to the refund report set for hearing.  In June 2011 the settlement judge certified the settlement as uncontested and the settlement agreement is currently pending before the FERC.  In July 2011, Entergy filed an amended/corrected refund report and a motion to defer action on the settlement agreement until after the FERC rules on the LPSC’s rehearing request regarding the June 2011 decision denying refunds.

Prior to the FERC’s June 2011 order on rehearing, Entergy Arkansas filed an application in November 2010 with the APSC for recovery of the refund that it paid.  The APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s application, and also denied Entergy Arkansas’s petition for rehearing.  If the FERC were to order Entergy Arkansas to pay refunds on rehearing in the interruptible load proceeding the APSC’s decision would trap FERC-approved costs at Entergy Arkansas with no regulatory-approved mechanism to recover them.  In August 2011, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas asking for a declaratory judgment that the rejection of Entergy Arkansas’s application by the APSC is preempted by the Federal Power Act.  The APSC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  In April 2012 the United States district court dismissed Entergy Arkansas’s complaint without prejudice stating that Entergy Arkansas’s claim is not ripe for adjudication and that Entergy Arkansas did not have standing to bring suit at this time.

In March 2013 the FERC issued an order denying the LPSC’s request for rehearing of the FERC’s June 2011 order wherein the FERC concluded it would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in the interruptible load proceeding. Based on its review of the LPSC’s request for rehearing and the briefs filed as part of the paper hearing established in October 2011, the FERC affirmed its earlier ruling and declined to order refunds under the circumstances of the case. 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 the proceeding. Oral argument was held on the appeal in the D.C. Circuit in September 2014. 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. The matter is pending.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

In June 2009, the LPSC filed a complaint requesting that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocate the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibits sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies.   The LPSC’s complaint challenges sales made beginning in 2002 and requests refunds.  In July 2009 the Utility operating companies filed a response to the complaint requesting that the FERC dismiss the complaint on the merits without hearing because the LPSC has failed to meet its burden of showing any violation of the System Agreement and failed to produce any evidence of imprudent action by the Entergy System.  In their response, the Utility operating companies explained that the System Agreement clearly contemplates that the Utility operating companies may make sales to third parties for their own account, subject to the requirement that those sales be included in the load (or load shape) for the applicable Utility operating company.  The response further explained that the FERC already had determined that Entergy Arkansas’s short-term wholesale sales did not trigger the “right-of-first-refusal” provision of the System Agreement.  While the D.C. Circuit recently determined that the “right-of-first-refusal” issue was not properly before the FERC at the time of its earlier decision on the issue, the LPSC raised no additional claims or facts that would warrant the FERC reaching a different conclusion.

The LPSC filed direct testimony in the proceeding alleging, among other things, (1) that Entergy violated the System Agreement by permitting Entergy Arkansas to make non-requirements sales to non-affiliated third parties rather than making such energy available to the other Utility operating companies’ customers; and (2) that over the period 2000 - 2009, these non-requirements sales caused harm to the Utility operating companies’ customers and these customers should be compensated for this harm by Entergy.  In subsequent testimony, the LPSC modified its original damages claim in favor of quantifying damages by re-running intra-system bills.  The Utility operating companies believe the LPSC’s allegations are without merit.  A hearing in the matter was held in August 2010.

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

The FERC issued a decision in June 2012 and held that, while the System Agreement is ambiguous, it does provide authority for individual Utility operating companies to make opportunity sales for their own account and Entergy Arkansas made and priced these sales in good faith.  The FERC found, however, that the System Agreement does not provide authority for an individual Utility operating company to allocate the energy associated with such opportunity sales as part of its load, but provides a different allocation authority.  The FERC further found that the after-the-fact accounting methodology used to allocate the energy used to supply the sales was inconsistent with the System Agreement.  Quantifying the effect of the FERC’s decision will require re-running intra-system bills for a ten-year period, and the FERC in its decision established further hearing procedures to determine the calculation of the effects.  In July 2012, Entergy and the LPSC filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s June 2012 decision, which are pending with the FERC.

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

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

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy Arkansas

Entergy Arkansas December 2012 Winter Storm

In December 2012 a severe winter storm consisting of ice, snow, and high winds caused significant damage to Entergy Arkansas’s distribution lines, equipment, poles, and other facilities.  Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Arkansas’s electrical facilities in areas damaged from the winter storm were $63 million, including costs recorded as regulatory assets of approximately $22 million.  In the Entergy Arkansas 2013 rate case, the APSC approved inclusion of the construction spending in rate base and approved an increase in the normal storm cost accrual.

Entergy Louisiana

Hurricane Isaac

In August 2012, Hurricane Isaac caused extensive damage to portions of Entergy’s service area in Louisiana, and to a lesser extent in Mississippi and Arkansas.  The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages.  In January 2013, Entergy Louisiana drew $252 million, from its funded storm reserve escrow accounts.  In April 2013, Entergy Louisiana filed a joint application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs.  Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested that the LPSC determine the amount of such costs that were prudently incurred and are, thus, eligible for recovery from customers.  Including carrying costs and additional storm escrow funds for prior storms, Entergy Louisiana requested an LPSC determination that $321.5 million in system restoration costs were prudently incurred. In May 2013, Entergy Louisiana, and the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation (LURC), an instrumentality of the State of Louisiana, filed with the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant financing orders authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Act 55 of the Louisiana Regular Session of 2007 (Louisiana Act 55). The LPSC Staff filed direct testimony in September 2013 concluding that Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs incurred by Entergy Louisiana were reasonable and prudent, subject to proposed minor adjustments which totaled approximately 1% of the company’s costs. Following an evidentiary hearing and recommendations by the ALJ, the LPSC voted in June 2014 to approve a series of orders which (i) quantify the amount of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs prudently incurred ($290.8 million for Entergy Louisiana); (ii) determine the level of storm reserves to be re-established ($290 million for Entergy Louisiana); (iii) authorize Entergy Louisiana to utilize Louisiana Act 55 financing for Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs; and (iv) grant other requested relief associated with storm reserves and Act 55 financing of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs.  Entergy Louisiana committed to pass on to customers a minimum of $30.8 million of customer benefits through annual customer credits of approximately $6.2 million for five years. Approvals for the Act 55 financings were obtained from the LURC and the Louisiana State Bond Commission.

In July 2014, Entergy Louisiana issued two series totaling $300 million of 3.78% Series first mortgage bonds due April 2025. Entergy Louisiana used the proceeds to re-establish and replenish its storm damage escrow reserves and for general corporate purposes.

In August 2014 the Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority (LCDA) issued $314.85 million in bonds under Louisiana Act 55.  From the $309 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LCDA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $16 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $293 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  Entergy Louisiana used the $293 million received from the LURC to acquire 2,935,152.69 Class C preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy, that carry a 7.5% annual distribution rate. Distributions are payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2014, and the membership interests have a liquidation price of $100 per unit. The preferred membership interests are callable at the option of Entergy Holdings Company LLC after ten years under the terms of the LLC agreement. The terms of the membership interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Holdings Company LLC is subject, including the requirement to maintain a net worth of at least $1.75 billion.

Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LCDA and there is no recourse against Entergy or Entergy Louisiana in the event of a bond default.  To service the bonds, Entergy Louisiana collect a system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC, and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee.  Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as the billing and collection agent for the state.

Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike

In September 2008, Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike caused catastrophic damage to Entergy’s service territory.  Entergy Louisiana filed its Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike storm cost recovery case with the LPSC in May 2009.  In September 2009, Entergy Louisiana and the LURC filed with the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant financing orders authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55. Entergy Louisiana’s Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita storm costs were financed primarily by Louisiana Act 55 financing, as discussed below.  Entergy Louisiana also filed an application requesting LPSC approval for ancillary issues including the mechanism to flow charges and Louisiana Act 55 financing savings to customers via a Storm Cost Offset rider.

In December 2009, Entergy Louisiana entered into a stipulation agreement with the LPSC Staff that provides for total recoverable costs of approximately $628 million, including carrying costs.  Under this stipulation, Entergy Louisiana agrees not to recover $11.6 million of its storm restoration spending.  The stipulation also permits replenishing Entergy Louisiana’s storm reserve in the amount of $290 million when the Act 55 financings are accomplished.  In March and April 2010, Entergy Louisiana and other parties to the proceeding filed with the LPSC an uncontested stipulated settlement that includes these terms and also includes Entergy Louisiana’s proposal under the Act 55 financings, which includes a commitment to pass on to customers a minimum of $43.3 million of customer benefits through a prospective annual rate reduction of $8.7 million for five years.  A stipulation hearing was held before the ALJ on April 13, 2010.  On April 21, 2010, the LPSC approved the settlement and subsequently issued financing orders and a ratemaking order intended to facilitate the implementation of the Act 55 financings.  In June 2010 the Louisiana State Bond Commission approved the Act 55 financing.

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

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

Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita

In August and September 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused catastrophic damage to large portions of the Utility’s service territories in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, including the effect of extensive flooding that resulted from levee breaks in and around the greater New Orleans area.  The storms and flooding resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to electric distribution, transmission, and generation and gas infrastructure, and the loss of sales and customers due to mandatory evacuations and the destruction of homes and businesses.

In March 2008, Entergy Louisiana and the LURC filed at the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant a financing order authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55.  The Louisiana Act 55 financing is expected to produce additional customer benefits as compared to traditional securitization.  Entergy Louisiana also filed an application requesting LPSC approval for ancillary issues including the mechanism to flow charges and savings to customers via a Storm Cost Offset rider.  On April 8, 2008, the Louisiana Public Facilities Authority (LPFA), which is the issuer of the bonds pursuant to the Act 55 financing, approved requests for the Act 55 financing.  On April 10, 2008, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC Staff filed with the LPSC an uncontested stipulated settlement that includes Entergy Louisiana’s proposal under the Act 55 financing, which includes a commitment to pass on to customers a minimum of $40 million of customer benefits through a prospective annual rate reduction of $8 million for five years.  On April 16, 2008, the LPSC approved the settlement and issued two financing orders and one ratemaking order intended to facilitate implementation of the Act 55 financing.  In May 2008 the Louisiana State Bond Commission granted final approval of the Act 55 financing.

In July 2008, the LPFA issued $687.7 million in bonds under the aforementioned Act 55.  From the $679 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LPFA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $152 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $527 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Louisiana invested $545 million, including $17.8 million that was withdrawn from the restricted escrow account as approved by the April 16, 2008 LPSC orders, in exchange for 5,449,861.85 Class A preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy, that carry a 10% annual distribution rate.  In August 2008, the LPFA issued $278.4 million in bonds under the aforementioned Act 55.  From the $274.7 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LPFA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $87 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $187.7 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Louisiana invested $189.4 million, including $1.7 million that was withdrawn from the restricted escrow account as approved by the April 16, 2008 LPSC orders, in exchange for 1,893,918.39 Class A preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC that carry a 10% annual distribution rate.  Distributions are payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2008 and have a liquidation price of $100 per unit.  The preferred membership interests are callable at the option of Entergy Holdings Company LLC after ten years under the terms of the LLC agreement.  The terms of the membership interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Holdings Company LLC is subject, including the requirement to maintain a net worth of at least $1 billion.  In February 2012, Entergy Louisiana sold 500,000 of its Class A preferred membership units in Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a wholly-owned Entergy subsidiary, to a third party in exchange for $51 million plus accrued but unpaid distributions on the units.  The 500,000 preferred membership units are mandatorily redeemable in January 2112.

Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LPFA, and there is no recourse against Entergy or Entergy Louisiana in the event of a bond default.  To service the bonds, Entergy Louisiana collect a system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC, and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee.  Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as the billing and collection agent for the state.

Entergy Mississippi

On July 1, 2013, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation, wherein both parties agreed that approximately $32 million in storm restoration costs incurred in 2011 and 2012 were prudently incurred and chargeable to the storm damage provision, while approximately $700,000 in prudently incurred costs were more properly recoverable through the formula rate plan. Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff also agreed that the storm damage accrual should be increased from $750,000 per month to $1.75 million per month. In September 2013 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with the increase in the storm damage accrual effective with October 2013 bills. In February 2015, Entergy Mississippi provided notice to the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff that the storm damage accrual would be set to zero effective with the March 2015 billing cycle as a result of Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage accrual balance exceeding $15 million as of January 31, 2015, but will return to its current level when the storm damage accrual balance becomes less than $10 million.

Entergy New Orleans

In October 2006 the City Council approved a rate filing settlement agreement that, among other things, authorized a $75 million storm reserve for damage from future storms, which will be created over a ten-year period through a storm reserve rider that began in March 2007.  These storm reserve funds are held in a restricted escrow account until needed in response to a storm.  

In August 2012, Hurricane Isaac caused extensive damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy New Orleans’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Isaac were $47.3 million. Entergy New Orleans withdrew $17.4 million from the storm reserve escrow account to partially offset these costs. In February 2014, Entergy New Orleans made a filing with the City Council seeking certification of the Hurricane Isaac costs. In January 2015 the City Council issued a resolution approving the terms of a joint agreement in principle filed by Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Louisiana, and the City Council Advisors determining, among other things, that Entergy New Orleans’s prudently-incurred storm recovery costs were $49.3 million, of which $31.7 million, net of reimbursements from the storm reserve escrow account, remains recoverable from Entergy New Orleans’s electric customers. The resolution also directs Entergy New Orleans to file an application to securitize the unrecovered Council-approved storm recovery costs of $31.7 million pursuant to the Louisiana Electric Utility Storm Recovery Securitization Act (Louisiana Act 64). In addition, the resolution found that it is reasonable for Entergy New Orleans to include in the principal amount of its potential securitization the costs to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve in an amount that achieves the Council-approved funding level of $75 million. In January 2015, in compliance with that directive, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the financing of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. 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. In May 2015 the parties entered into an agreement in principle and the City Council issued a financing order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to issue storm recovery bonds in the aggregate amount of $98.7 million, including $31.8 million for recovery of Entergy New Orleans’s Hurricane Isaac storm recovery costs, including carrying costs, $63.9 million to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve, and approximately $3 million for estimated up-front financing costs associated with the securitization. See Note 5 to the financial statements for discussion of the issuance of the securitization bonds in July 2015.

New Nuclear Generation Development Costs

Entergy Louisiana

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana were developing a project option for new nuclear generation at River Bend.  In March 2010, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC seeking approval to continue the limited development activities necessary to preserve an option to construct a new unit at River Bend.  At its June 2012 meeting the LPSC voted to uphold an ALJ recommendation that the request of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana be declined on the basis that the LPSC’s rule on new nuclear development does not apply to activities to preserve an option to develop and on the further grounds that the companies improperly engaged in advanced preparation activities prior to certification.  The LPSC directed that Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana be permitted to seek recovery of these costs in their upcoming rate case filings that were subsequently filed in February 2013. In the resolution of the rate case proceeding the LPSC provided for an eight-year amortization of costs incurred in connection with the potential development of new nuclear generation at River Bend, without carrying costs, beginning in December 2014, provided, however, that amortization of these costs shall not result in a future rate increase. As of December 31, 2015, Entergy Louisiana has a regulatory asset of $50.4 million on its balance sheet related to these new nuclear generation development costs.

Entergy Mississippi

Pursuant to the Mississippi Baseload Act and the Mississippi Public Utilities Act, Entergy Mississippi had been developing and preserving a project option for new nuclear generation at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station.  In October 2010, Entergy Mississippi filed an application with the MPSC requesting that the MPSC determine that it was in the public interest to preserve the option to construct new nuclear generation at Grand Gulf and that the MPSC approve the deferral of Entergy Mississippi’s costs incurred to date and in the future related to this project, including the accrual of AFUDC or similar carrying charges.  In October 2011, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed with the MPSC a joint stipulation that the MPSC approved in November 2011.  The stipulation stated that there should be a deferral of the $57 million of costs incurred through September 2011 in connection with planning, evaluation, monitoring, and other and related generation resource development activities for new nuclear generation at Grand Gulf.  

In October 2014, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into and filed joint stipulations in Entergy Mississippi’s general rate case proceeding, which are discussed above. In consideration of the comprehensive terms for settlement in that rate case proceeding, the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff and Entergy Mississippi agreed that Entergy Mississippi would request consolidation of the new nuclear generation development costs proceeding with the rate case proceeding for hearing purposes and will not further pursue, except as noted below, recovery of the costs deferred by MPSC order in the new nuclear generation development docket. The stipulations state, however, that, if Entergy Mississippi decides to move forward with nuclear development in Mississippi, it can at that time re-present for consideration by the MPSC only those costs directly associated with the existing early site permit (ESP), to the extent that the costs are verifiable and prudent and the ESP is still valid and relevant to any such option pursued. After considering the progress of the new nuclear generation costs proceeding in light of the joint stipulations, Entergy Mississippi recorded in 2014 a $56.2 million pre-tax charge to recognize that the regulatory asset associated with new nuclear generation development is no longer probable of recovery. In December 2014 the MPSC issued an order accepting in their entirety the October 2014 stipulations, including the findings and terms of the stipulations regarding new nuclear generation development costs.

Texas Power Price Lawsuit

In August 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the district court of Chambers County, Texas by Texas residents on behalf of a purported class of the Texas retail customers of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. who were billed and paid for electric power from January 1, 1994 to the present.  The named defendants include Entergy Corporation, Entergy Services, Entergy Power, Entergy Power Marketing Corp., and Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Gulf States, Inc. was not a named defendant, but was alleged to be a co-conspirator.  The court granted the request of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. to intervene in the lawsuit to protect its interests.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a “price gouging accounting scheme” to sell to plaintiffs and similarly situated utility customers higher priced power generated by the defendants while rejecting less expensive power offered from off-system suppliers.  In particular, plaintiffs allege that the defendants manipulated and continue to manipulate the dispatch of generation so that power is purchased from affiliated expensive resources instead of buying cheaper off-system power.

Plaintiffs stated in their pleadings that customers in Texas were charged at least $57 million above prevailing market prices for power.  Plaintiffs seek actual, consequential and exemplary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees, and disgorgement of profits.  The plaintiffs’ experts have tendered a report calculating damages in a large range, from $153 million to $972 million in present value, under various scenarios as of the date of the report.  The Entergy defendants have tendered expert reports challenging the assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions of the plaintiffs’ expert reports.

In March 2012 the state district court found that the case met the requirements to be maintained as a class action under Texas law.  In April 2012 the court entered an order certifying the class.  The defendants appealed the order to the Texas Court of Appeals – First District and oral argument was held in May 2013. In November 2014 the Texas Court of Appeals - First District reversed the state district court’s class certification order and dismissed the case holding that the state district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to address the issues. Plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing and a motion for rehearing en banc. 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. In July 2015 the Court of Appeals issued a new opinion again finding that the plaintiffs’ claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC and, therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The Court of Appeals ordered that the state district court dismiss all claims against the Entergy defendants. In September 2015 plaintiffs filed a petition for review at the Supreme Court of Texas. At the request of the Court, the Entergy defendants filed a response in December 2015. In January 2016 the Supreme Court of Texas issued an order requiring the parties to file briefs on the merits.

Entergy Mississippi [Member]

Rate And Regulatory Matters

RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities

Regulatory assets represent probable future revenues associated with costs that Entergy expects to recover from customers through the regulatory ratemaking process under which the Utility business operates. Regulatory liabilities represent probable future reductions in revenues associated with amounts that Entergy expects to benefit customers through the regulatory ratemaking process under which the Utility business operates. In addition to the regulatory assets and liabilities that are specifically disclosed on the face of the balance sheets, the tables below provide detail of “Other regulatory assets” and “Other regulatory liabilities” that are included on Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and 2014:

Other Regulatory Assets

Entergy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$2,574.9		$2,798.8
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 – Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators) (Note 5 - Entergy Arkansas Securitization Bonds)	717.8		736.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	589.1		513.8
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	273.3		245.1
Little Gypsy costs – recovered through securitization (Note 5 – Entergy Louisiana Securitization Bonds - Little Gypsy)	121.1		139.2
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	66.7		76.2
Transition to competition costs - recovered over a 15-year period through February 2021	57.4		66.2
New nuclear generation development costs (Note 2 - New Nuclear Generation Development Costs) (c)	51.1		58.4
MISO implementation costs - recovery through retail rate riders (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	49.4		69.6
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined by retail regulators	32.2		54.7
Human capital management costs - recovery through retail rate mechanisms (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	28.3		42.3
Other	143.5		168.1
Entergy Total		$4,704.8		$4,968.6

Entergy Arkansas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$766.5		$838.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	288.0		254.8
Storm damage costs - recovered either through securitization or retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators) (Note 5 - Entergy Arkansas Securitization Bonds)	97.2		125.6
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	85.7		59.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	23.0		26.2
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	18.1		23.3
MISO implementation costs - recovery through retail rates through 2018 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (c)	17.5		25.1
Human capital management costs - recovery through retail rates through June 2017 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (c)	10.4		17.3
Lake Catherine 4 reliability and sustainability cost deferral - recovery expected through retail rates (c)	10.4		2.4
Incremental ice storm costs - recovered through 2032	8.4		9.0
Other	8.6		10.4
Entergy Arkansas Total		$1,333.8		$1,391.3

Entergy Louisiana

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$718.7		$774.0
Asset Retirement Obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	180.8		167.5
Little Gypsy costs – recovered through securitization (Note 5 – Entergy Louisiana Securitization Bonds - Little Gypsy)	119.2		139.2
New nuclear generation development costs - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2014 through November 2022 (Note 2 - New Nuclear Generation Development Costs) (c)	50.4		58.4
MISO implementation costs - recovery through the MISO cost recovery mechanism beginning December 2014 through November 2017 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	26.6		37.1
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	19.2		21.1
Human capital management costs - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2014 through November 2017 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	17.6		25.0
River Bend AFUDC - recovered through August 2025 (Note 1 – River Bend AFUDC)	16.7		18.6
Business combination external costs deferral - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2015 through November 2025 (c)	16.1		—
MISO integration deferral - recovery through the MISO cost recovery mechanism beginning December 2014 through November 2017	14.5		23.3
Gas hedging costs - recovered through fuel rates (Note 16 - Derivatives)	7.0		15.8
Spindletop gas storage facility - recovery period through August 2016 (a) (Note 2 - System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings)	1.1		26.2
Other	30.0		34.4
Entergy Louisiana Total		$1,217.9		$1,340.6

Entergy Mississippi

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$216.1		$224.3
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	77.5		76.3
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	7.6		27.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	7.1		8.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	6.7		6.3
Baxter Wilson outage costs - recovered through retail rates over two years beginning February 2015 (Note 8 - Baxter Wilson Plant Event)	3.2		6.0
MISO implementation costs - recovery through retail rate riders (Note 2 – Retail Rate Proceedings)	2.7		4.0
Other	7.8		12.6
Entergy Mississippi Total		$328.7		$364.7

Entergy New Orleans

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through retail rates and securitization (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators)		$104.0		$18.5
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)	103.7		115.8
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	29.4		35.2
Michoud plant maintenance – recovered over a 7-year period through September 2018	5.2		7.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	4.0		3.8
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined monthly or annually	3.1		0.4
Rate case costs - recovered through retail rates (c)	3.2		3.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	1.6		1.8
Other	11.1		9.2
Entergy New Orleans Total		$265.3		$194.9

Entergy Texas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators)		$516.2		$591.7
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)	193.6		217.0
Transition to competition costs - recovered over a 15-year period through February 2021	57.4		66.2
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	25.8		18.9
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	9.4		10.5
Rate case costs -recovered through retail rates (c)	3.8		8.4
Other	6.7		9.4
Entergy Texas Total		$812.9		$922.1

System Energy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans and Other Postretirement Benefits) (b)		$178.0		$191.0
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (b)	108.6		80.4
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	54.8		55.7
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	6.4		8.5
System Energy Total		$347.8		$335.6

(a) The jurisdictional split order assigned the regulatory asset to Entergy Texas.  The regulatory asset, however, is being recovered and amortized at Entergy Louisiana.  As a result, a billing occurs monthly over the same term as the recovery and receipts will be submitted to Entergy Texas.  Entergy Texas has recorded a receivable from Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana has recorded a corresponding payable.

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

(c) Does not earn a return on investment.

Other Regulatory Liabilities

Entergy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)		$611.7		$656.7
Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8)	222.6		242.8
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation (Note 2)	156.0		156.0
Business combination guaranteed customer benefits - returned to customers through retail rates and fuel rates beginning December 2015 through November 2024 (Note 2 - Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination)	105.2		—
Removal costs - returned to customers through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)	68.3		82.7
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback - (Note 10 - Sale and Leaseback Transactions)	67.9		79.5
Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - amortized and credited through the UPSA	46.4		53.6
Entergy Arkansas’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and FERC	44.4		44.4
Waterford 3 replacement steam generator provision (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	31.7		—
Asset retirement obligation - will be returned to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)	28.2		27.7
Other	32.5		40.2
Entergy Total		$1,414.9		$1,383.6

Entergy Arkansas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)		$236.1		$254.0
Other	6.8		—
Entergy Arkansas Total		$242.9		$254.0

Entergy Louisiana

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8)		$222.6		$242.8
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)	196.9		209.1
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation (Note 2)	156.0		156.0
Business combination guaranteed customer benefits - returned to customers through retail rates and fuel rates beginning December 2015 through November 2024 (Note 2 - Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination)	105.2		—
Removal costs - returned to customers through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)	68.3		82.6
Waterford 3 replacement steam generator provision (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	31.7		—
Asset Retirement Obligation - will be returned to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)	28.2		27.7
Other	9.7		4.2
Entergy Louisiana Total		$818.6		$722.4

Entergy Texas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Transition to competition costs - returned to customers through rate riders when rates are redetermined periodically		$6.4		$5.1
Entergy Texas Total		$6.4		$5.1

System Energy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)		$178.7		$193.6
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback - (Note 10 - Sale and Leaseback Transactions)	67.9		79.5
Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - amortized and credited through the UPSA	46.4		53.6
Entergy Arkansas’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and FERC	44.4		44.4
System Energy Total		$337.4		$371.1

(a) Offset by related asset.

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas are allowed to recover fuel and purchased power costs through fuel mechanisms included in electric and gas rates that are recorded as fuel cost recovery revenues.  The difference between revenues collected and the current fuel and purchased power costs is generally recorded as “Deferred fuel costs” on the Utility operating companies’ financial statements.  The table below shows the amount of deferred fuel costs as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 that Entergy expects to recover (or return to customers) through fuel mechanisms, subject to subsequent regulatory review.

	2015			2014
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas (a)		$57.8			$209.2
Entergy Louisiana (b)		$102.9			$107.1
Entergy Mississippi		($107.8	)		($2.2	)
Entergy New Orleans (b)		($24.9	)		($25.1	)
Entergy Texas		($25.1	)		$11.9

(a) 2015 and 2014 include respectively $66.7 million and $65.9 million for Entergy Arkansas of fuel, purchased power, and capacity costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

(b) 2015 and 2014 include $168.1 million for Entergy Louisiana and $4.1 million for Entergy New Orleans of fuel, purchased power, and capacity costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

Entergy Arkansas

Production Cost Allocation Rider

The APSC approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas as a result of the System Agreement proceedings, which are discussed in the “System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings” section below.  These costs cause an increase in Entergy Arkansas’s deferred fuel cost balance because Entergy Arkansas pays the costs over seven months but collects them from customers over twelve months.

In May 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider to recover the $3 million unrecovered retail balance as of December 31, 2013 and the $67.8 million System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment made in May 2014 as a result of the compliance filing pursuant to the FERC’s February 2014 orders related to the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. In June 2014 the APSC suspended the annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider and scheduled a hearing in September 2014. Upon a joint motion of the parties, the APSC canceled the September 2014 hearing and in January 2015 the APSC issued an order approving Entergy Arkansas’s request for recovery of the $3 million under-recovered amount based on the true-up of the production cost allocation rider and the $67.8 million May 2014 System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment subject to refund with interest, with recovery of these payments concluding with the last billing cycle in December 2015. The APSC also found that Entergy Arkansas is entitled to carrying charges pursuant to the current terms of the production cost allocation rider. Entergy Arkansas made its compliance filing pursuant to the order in January 2015 and the APSC issued its approval order, also in January 2015. The redetermined rate went into effect the first billing cycle of February 2015.

In May 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider, which included a $38 million payment made by Entergy Arkansas as a result of the FERC’s February 2014 order related to the comprehensive bandwidth recalculation for calendar year 2006, 2007, and 2008 production costs. The redetermined rate for the 2015 production cost allocation rider update was added to the redetermined rate from the 2014 production cost allocation rider update and the combined rate was effective with the first billing cycle of July 2015. This combined rate was effective through December 2015. The collection of the remainder of the redetermined rate for the 2015 production cost allocation rider update will continue through June 2016.

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

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

In October 2005 the APSC initiated an investigation into Entergy Arkansas’s interim energy cost recovery rate.  The investigation focused on Entergy Arkansas’s 1) gas contracting, portfolio, and hedging practices; 2) wholesale purchases during the period; 3) management of the coal inventory at its coal generation plants; and 4) response to the contractual failure of the railroads to provide coal deliveries.  In March 2006 the APSC extended its investigation to cover the costs included in Entergy Arkansas’s March 2006 annual energy cost rate filing, and a hearing was held in the APSC investigation in October 2006.

In January 2007 the APSC issued an order in its review of the energy cost rate.  The APSC found that Entergy Arkansas failed to maintain an adequate coal inventory level going into the summer of 2005 and that Entergy Arkansas should be responsible for any incremental energy costs that resulted from two outages caused by employee and contractor error.  The coal plant generation curtailments were caused by railroad delivery problems and Entergy Arkansas resolved litigation with the railroad regarding the delivery problems.  The APSC staff was directed to perform an analysis with Entergy Arkansas’s assistance to determine the additional fuel and purchased energy costs associated with these findings and file the analysis within sixty days of the order.  After a final determination of the costs is made by the APSC, Entergy Arkansas will be directed to refund that amount with interest to its customers as a credit on the energy cost recovery rider.  Entergy Arkansas requested rehearing of the order.

In February 2010 the APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s request for rehearing, and held a hearing in September 2010 to determine the amount of damages, if any, that should be assessed against Entergy Arkansas.  A decision is pending.  Entergy Arkansas expects the amount of damages, if any, to have an immaterial effect on its results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

The APSC also established a separate docket to consider the resolved railroad litigation, and in February 2010 it established a procedural schedule that concluded with testimony through September 2010.  The testimony was filed, and the APSC will decide the case based on the record in the proceeding.

In January 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion with the APSC relating to its redetermination of its energy cost rate that was filed in March 2014. In that motion, Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to exclude $65.9 million of deferred fuel and purchased energy costs incurred in 2013 from the redetermination of its 2014 energy cost rate. The $65.9 million is an estimate of the incremental fuel and replacement energy costs that Entergy Arkansas incurred as a result of the ANO stator incident. Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to retain that amount in its deferred fuel balance, with recovery to be reviewed in a later period after more information is available regarding various claims associated with the ANO stator incident. The APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’s request in February 2014. See the “ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews” section in Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of the ANO stator incident.

Entergy Louisiana

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

In April 2010 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009.  The LPSC staff issued its audit report in January 2013.  The LPSC staff recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $1.9 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $1 million from Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates.  The recommended refund was made by Entergy Louisiana in May 2013 in the form of a credit to customers through its fuel adjustment clause filing. Two parties intervened in the proceeding. A procedural schedule was established for the identification of issues by the intervenors and for Entergy Louisiana to submit comments regarding the LPSC Staff report and any issues raised by intervenors. One intervenor is seeking further proceedings regarding certain issues it raised in its comments on the LPSC Staff report. Entergy Louisiana has filed responses to both the LPSC Staff report and the issues raised by the intervenor. As required by the procedural schedule, a joint status report was submitted in October 2013 by the parties. A status conference was held in December 2013. Discovery has ceased and the parties are awaiting issuance of the audit report of the LPSC staff, but a procedural schedule has not been established.

In December 2011 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate another proceeding to audit the fuel adjustment clause filings of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and its affiliates.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period 2005 through 2009.  Discovery has ceased and the parties are awaiting issuance of the audit report of the LPSC staff, but a procedural schedule has not been established.

In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015.

In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015.

Entergy Mississippi

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

Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel balance of $60.4 million as of March 31, 2014. In May 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed for an interim adjustment under its energy cost recovery rider. The interim adjustment proposed a net energy cost factor designed to collect over a six-month period the under-recovered deferred fuel balance as of March 31, 2014 and also reflected a natural gas price of $4.50 per MMBtu. In May 2014, Entergy Mississippi and the Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation in which Entergy Mississippi agreed to a revised net energy cost factor that reflected the proposed interim adjustment with a reduction in costs recovered through the energy cost recovery rider associated with the suspension of the DOE nuclear waste storage fee. In June 2014 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation and allowed Entergy Mississippi’s interim adjustment. In November 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider.  Due to lower gas prices and a lower deferred fuel balance, the redetermined annual factor was a decrease from the revised interim net energy cost factor.  In January 2015 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective January 30, 2015.

Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel over-recovery balance of $58.3 million as of May 31, 2015, along with an under-recovery balance of $12.3 million under the power management rider. Pursuant to those tariffs, in July 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed for interim adjustments under both the energy cost recovery rider and the power management rider to flow through to customers the approximately $46 million net over-recovery over a six-month period. In August 2015, the MPSC approved the interim adjustments effective with September 2015 bills. In November 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included a projected over-recovery balance of $48 million projected through January 31, 2016. In January 2016 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective February 1, 2016. The MPSC further ordered, however, that due to the significant change in natural gas price forecasts since Entergy Mississippi’s filing in November 2015 Entergy Mississippi shall file a revised fuel factor with the MPSC no later than February 1, 2016. In February 2016, Entergy Mississippi submitted a revised fuel factor reflecting a natural gas price of $2.45 per MMBtu.

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 Attorney General appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the denial of the motion to remand. In July 2015 the Fifth Circuit issued an order denying the appeal, and the Attorney General subsequently filed a petition for rehearing of the request for interlocutory appeal, which was also denied. The case remains pending in federal district court, awaiting a ruling on the Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. In December 2015 the District Court ordered that the parties submit to the court undisputed and disputed facts that are material to the Entergy defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, as well as supplemental briefs regarding the same. Those filings were made in January 2016.

Entergy New Orleans

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

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

Entergy Texas

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

In October 2012, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to refund approximately $78 million, including interest, of fuel cost recovery over-collections through September 2012.  Entergy Texas requested that the refund be implemented over a six-month period effective with the January 2013 billing month.  Entergy Texas and the parties to the proceeding reached an agreement that Entergy Texas would refund $84 million, including interest and additional over-recoveries through October 2012, to most customers over a three-month period beginning January 2013.  The PUCT approved the stipulation in January 2013. Entergy Texas completed this refund to customers in March 2013.

In July 2012, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application to credit its customers approximately $37.5 million, including interest, resulting from the FERC’s October 2011 order in the System Agreement rough production cost equalization proceeding which is discussed below in “System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings.”  In September 2012 the parties submitted a stipulation resolving the proceeding.  The stipulation provided that most Entergy Texas customers would be credited over a four-month period beginning October 2012.  The credits were initiated with the October 2012 billing month on an interim basis, and the PUCT subsequently approved the stipulation, also in October 2012.

In August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking PUCT approval to implement an interim fuel refund of approximately $24.6 million for over-collected fuel costs incurred during the months of November 2012 through April 2014. This refund resulted from (i) applying $48.6 million in bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received in May 2014 related to the June - December 2005 period to Entergy Texas’s $8.7 million under-recovered fuel balance as of April 30, 2014 and (ii) netting that fuel balance against the $15.3 million bandwidth remedy paymentthat Entergy Texas made related to calendar year 2013 production costs. Also in August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed motion for interim rates to implement these refunds for most customers over a two-month period commencing with September 2014. The PUCT issued its order approving the interim relief in August 2014 and Entergy Texas completed the refunds in October 2014.Parties intervened in this matter, and all parties agreed that the proceeding should be bifurcated such that the proposed interim refund would become final in a separate proceeding, which refund was approved by the PUCT in March 2015.   In July 2015 certain parties filed briefs in the open proceeding asserting that Entergy Texas should refund to retail customers an additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs.  In October 2015 an ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments be refunded to retail customers. In January 2016 the PUCT issued its order affirming the ALJ’s recommendation, and Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the PUCT’s decision, which the PUCT denied.

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

Retail Rate Proceedings

Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas)

Retail Rates

2013 Base Rate Filing

In March 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing assumed Entergy Arkansas’s transition to MISO in December 2013, and requested a rate increase of $174 million, including $49 million of revenue being transferred from collection in riders to base rates. The filing also proposed a new transmission rider and a capacity cost recovery rider. The filing requested a 10.4% return on common equity. In September 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed testimony reflecting an updated rate increase request of $145 million, with no change to its requested return on common equity of 10.4%. Hearings in the proceeding began in October 2013, and in December 2013 the APSC issued an order. The order authorized a base rate increase of $81 million and included an authorized return on common equity of 9.3%. The order allowed Entergy Arkansas to amortize its human capital management costs over a three-and-a-half year period, but also ordered Entergy Arkansas to file a detailed report of the Arkansas-specific costs, savings and final payroll changes upon conclusion of the human capital management strategic imperative. The detailed report was subsequently filed in February 2015. The substance of the report was addressed in Entergy Arkansas’s 2015 base rate filing. New rates under the January 2014 order were implemented in the first billing cycle of March 2014 and were effective as of January 2014. Additionally, in January 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition for rehearing or clarification of several aspects of the APSC’s order, including the 9.3% authorized return on common equity. In February 2014 the APSC granted Entergy Arkansas’s petition for the purpose of considering the additional evidence identified by Entergy Arkansas. In August 2014 the APSC issued an order amending certain aspects of the original order, including providing for a 9.5% authorized return on common equity. Pursuant to the August 2014 order, revised rates were effective for all bills rendered after December 31, 2013 and were implemented in the first billing cycle of October 2014.

2015 Base Rate Filing

In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notified the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a forward test year formula rate plan pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requested a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requested a 10.2% return on common equity. In May 2015 the APSC issued an order suspending the proposed rates and tariffs filed by Entergy Arkansas and establishing a procedural schedule to complete its investigation of Entergy Arkansas’s application. In September 2015, APSC staff and intervenors filed direct testimony, with the APSC staff recommending a revenue requirement of $217.9 million and a 9.65% return on common equity. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in October 2015. In December 2015, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and certain of the intervenors in the rate case filed with the APSC a joint motion for approval of a settlement of the case that proposes a retail rate increase of approximately $225 million with a net increase in revenue of approximately $133 million; an authorized return on common equity of 9.75%; and a formula rate plan tariff that provides a 50 basis point band around the 9.75% allowed return on common equity.

A hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that would reduce the retail rate increase proposed in the settlement by $5 million. The parties were directed to inform the APSC by filing no later than February 26, 2016 whether they accept the APSC’s proposed settlement agreement modification or request a full hearing on the issues. Entergy Arkansas plans to make its first formula rate plan filing in July 2016 for rates effective with the first billing cycle of January 2017.

A significant portion of the rate increase is related to Entergy Arkansas’s acquisition of Union Power Station Power Block 2 for an expected base purchase price of $237 million, subject to adjustment. The acquisition is expected to be completed promptly following the receipt of FERC approval. If the acquisition closes on or before March 24, 2016, recovery of the costs to acquire Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station will be through Entergy Arkansas’s new base rates that will commence with the first billing cycle of April 2016. If the transaction closes after that date, the parties have agreed to concurrent cost recovery through Entergy Arkansas’s capacity acquisition rider.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)

Retail Rates - Electric

2013 Rate Cases

In connection with its decision to extend the formula rate plan to the 2011 test year, the LPSC required that a base rate case be filed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, and the required filing was made in February 2013. The filing anticipated Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s integration into MISO. In the filing Entergy Gulf States Louisiana requested, among other relief:

• authorization to increase the revenue it collects from customers by approximately $24 million;

• an authorized return on common equity of 10.4%;

• authorization to increase depreciation rates embedded in the proposed revenue requirement; and,

• authorization to implement a three-year formula rate plan with a midpoint return on common equity of 10.4%, plus or minus 75 basis points (the deadband), that would provide a means for the annual re-setting of rates (commencing with calendar year 2013 as its first test year), that would include a mechanism to recover incremental transmission revenue requirement on the basis of a forward-looking test year as compared to the initial base year of 2014 with an annual true-up, that would retain the primary aspects of the prior formula rate plan, including a 60% to customers/40% to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana sharing mechanism for earnings outside the deadband, and a capacity rider mechanism that would permit recovery of incremental capacity additions approved by the LPSC.

Following a hearing before an ALJ and the ALJ’s issuance of a Report of Proceedings, in December 2013 the LPSC approved an unopposed settlement of the proceeding. Major terms of the settlement included approval of a three-year formula rate plan (effective for test years 2014-2016) modeled after the formula rate plan in effect for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana for 2011, including the following: (1) a midpoint return on equity of 9.95% plus or minus 80 basis points, with 60/40 sharing of earnings outside of the bandwidth; (2) recovery outside of the sharing mechanism for the non-fuel MISO-related costs, additional capacity revenue requirement, extraordinary items, such as the Ninemile 6 project, and certain special recovery items; (3) three-year amortization of costs to achieve savings associated with the human capital management strategic imperative, with savings to be reflected as they are realized in subsequent years; (4) eight-year amortization of costs incurred in connection with potential development of a new nuclear unit at River Bend, without carrying costs, beginning December 2014, provided, however, that amortization of these costs shall not result in a future rate increase; (5) no change in rates related to test year 2013, except with respect to recovery of the non-fuel MISO-related costs and any changes to the additional capacity revenue requirement; and (6) no increase in rates related to test year 2014, except for those items eligible for recovery outside of the earnings sharing mechanism. Existing depreciation rates will not change. Implementation of rate changes for items recoverable outside of the earnings sharing mechanism occurred in December 2014.

Pursuant to the rate case settlement approved by the LPSC in December 2013, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted a compliance filing in May 2014 reflecting the effects of the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism revenue requirement and adjustment of the additional capacity mechanism. In November 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted an additional compliance filing updating the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism for the most recent actual data. Based on this updated filing, a net increase of $5.8 million in formula rate plan revenue to be collected over nine months was implemented in December 2014. The compliance filings are subject to LPSC review in accordance with the review process set forth in Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s formula rate plan.

In November 2011 the LPSC approved a one-year extension of Entergy Louisiana’s formula rate plan.  In May 2012, Entergy Louisiana made its formula rate plan filing with the LPSC for the 2011 test year.  The filing reflected a 9.63% earned return on common equity, which is within the earnings bandwidth and resulted in no cost of service rate change under the formula rate plan.  The filing also reflected an $18.1 million rate increase for the incremental capacity rider.  In August 2012, Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised filing that reflected an earned return on common equity of 10.38%, which is still within the earnings bandwidth, resulting in no cost of service rate change.  The revised filing also indicated that an increase of $15.9 million should be reflected in the incremental capacity rider.  The rate change was implemented, subject to refund, effective for bills rendered the first billing cycle of September 2012.  Subsequently, in December 2012, Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised evaluation report that reflected two items: 1) a $17 million reduction for the first-year capacity charges for the purchase by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana from Entergy Louisiana of one-third of Acadia Unit 2 capacity and energy, and 2) an $88 million increase for the first-year retail revenue requirement associated with the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, which was in-service in December 2012.  These rate changes were implemented, subject to refund, effective with the first billing cycle of January 2013.  In April 2013, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint report resolving the 2011 test year formula rate plan and recovery related to the Grand Gulf uprate. This report was approved by the LPSC in April 2013.

In connection with its decision to extend the formula rate plan to the 2011 test year, the LPSC required that a base rate case be filed by Entergy Louisiana, and the required filing was made on February 15, 2013. The filing anticipated Entergy Louisiana’s integration into MISO. In the filing Entergy Louisiana requested, among other relief:

• authorization to increase the revenue it collects from customers by approximately $145 million (which does not take into account a revenue offset of approximately $2 million resulting from a proposed increase for those customers taking service under the Qualifying Facility Standby Service);

• an authorized return on common equity of 10.4%;

• authorization to increase depreciation rates embedded in the proposed revenue requirement; and

• authorization to implement a three-year formula rate plan with a midpoint return on common equity of 10.4%, plus or minus 75 basis points (the deadband), that would provide a means for the annual re-setting of rates (commencing with calendar year 2013 as its first test year), that would include a mechanism to recover incremental transmission revenue requirement on the basis of a forward-looking test year as compared to the initial base year of 2014 with an annual true-up, that would retain the primary aspects of the prior formula rate plan, including a 60% to customers/40% to Entergy Louisiana sharing mechanism for earnings outside the deadband, and a capacity rider mechanism that would permit recovery of incremental capacity additions approved by the LPSC.

Following a hearing before an ALJ and the ALJ’s issuance of a Report of Proceedings, in December 2013 the LPSC approved an unopposed settlement of the proceeding. The settlement provided for a $10 million rate increase effective with the first billing cycle of December 2014. Major terms of the settlement included approval of a three-year formula rate plan (effective for test years 2014-2016) modeled after the formula rate plan in effect for Entergy Louisiana for 2011, including the following: (1) a midpoint return on equity of 9.95% plus or minus 80 basis points, with 60/40 sharing of earnings outside of the bandwidth; (2) recovery outside of the sharing mechanism for the non-fuel MISO-related costs, additional capacity revenue requirement, extraordinary items, such as the Ninemile 6 project, and certain special recovery items; (3) three-year amortization of costs to achieve savings associated with the human capital management strategic imperative, with savings reflected as they are realized in subsequent years; (4) eight-year amortization of costs incurred in connection with potential development of a new nuclear unit at River Bend, without carrying costs, beginning December 2014, provided, however, that amortization of these costs shall not result in a future rate increase; (5) recovery of non-fuel MISO-related costs and any changes to the additional capacity revenue requirement related to test year 2013 effective with the first billing cycle of December 2014; and (6) a cumulative $30 million cap on cost of service increases over the three-year formula rate plan cycle, except for those items outside of the sharing mechanism. Existing depreciation rates will not change.

Pursuant to the rate case settlement approved by the LPSC in December 2013, Entergy Louisiana submitted a compliance filing in May 2014 reflecting the effects of the $10 million agreed-upon increase in formula rate plan revenue, the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism revenue requirement, and the adjustment of the additional capacity mechanism. In November 2014, Entergy Louisiana submitted an additional compliance filing updating the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism for the most recent actual data, as well as providing for a refund and prospective reduction in rates for the true-up of the estimated revenue requirement for the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project. Based on this updated filing, a net increase of $41.6 million in formula rate plan revenue to be collected over nine months was implemented in December 2014. The compliance filings are subject to LPSC review in accordance with the review process set forth in Entergy Louisiana’s formula rate plan. Additionally, the adjustments of rates made related to the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project included in the December 2014 compliance filing are subject to final true-up following completion of the LPSC’s determination regarding the prudence of the project. LPSC staff identified five issues, of which two remain. The remaining issues pertain to Entergy Louisiana’s method of collecting the agreed-upon $10 million increase and the level of recovery of investment related to the Grand Gulf uprate. No procedural schedule has been established, however, to address these remaining issues. The final issue raised by the LPSC staff pertains to the appropriate level of refunds related to the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project. That issue will be resolved in connection with the Waterford 3 prudence review proceedings discussed below.

Waterford 3 Replacement Steam Generator Project

Following the completion of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, the LPSC undertook a prudence review in connection with a filing made by Entergy Louisiana in April 2013 with regard to the following aspects of the replacement project: 1) project management; 2) cost controls; 3) success in achieving stated objectives; 4) the costs of the replacement project; and 5) the outage length and replacement power costs. In July 2014 the LPSC Staff filed testimony recommending potential project and replacement power cost disallowances of up to $71 million, citing a need for further explanation or documentation from Entergy Louisiana.  An intervenor filed testimony recommending disallowance of $141 million of incremental project costs, claiming the steam generator fabricator was imprudent.  Entergy Louisiana provided further documentation and explanation requested by the LPSC staff. An evidentiary hearing was held in December 2014. At the hearing the parties maintained the positions reflected in pre-filed testimony. Entergy Louisiana believes that the replacement steam generator costs were prudently incurred and applicable legal principles support their recovery in rates.  Nevertheless, Entergy Louisiana recorded a write-off of $16 million of Waterford 3’s plant balance in December 2014 because of the uncertainty at the time associated with the resolution of the prudence review. In December 2015 the ALJ issued a proposed recommendation, which was subsequently finalized, concluding that Entergy Louisiana prudently managed the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, including the selection, use, and oversight of contractors, and could not reasonably have anticipated the damage to the steam generators. Nevertheless, the ALJ concluded that Entergy Louisiana was liable for the conduct of its contractor and subcontractor and, therefore, recommended a disallowance of $67 million in capital costs. Additionally, the ALJ concluded that Entergy Louisiana did not sufficiently justify the incurrence of $2 million in replacement power costs during the replacement outage. Although the ALJ’s recommendation has yet to be considered by the LPSC, after considering the progress of the proceeding in light of the ALJ recommendation, Entergy Louisiana recorded in the fourth quarter 2015 approximately $77 million in charges, including a $45 million asset write-off and a $32 million regulatory charge, to reflect that a portion of the assets associated with the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project is no longer probable of recovery. Entergy Louisiana maintains that the ALJ’s recommendation contains significant factual and legal errors.

Ninemile 6

In July 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed stipulation with the LPSC that estimated a first year revenue requirement associated with Ninemile 6 and provided a mechanism to update the revenue requirement as the in-service date approached, which was subsequently approved by the LPSC. In late-December 2014, roughly contemporaneous with the unit's placement in service, a final updated estimated revenue requirement of $26.8 million for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and $51.1 million for Entergy Louisiana was filed. The December 2014 estimate forms the basis of rates implemented effective with the first billing cycle of January 2015. In July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a compliance filing including an estimate at completion, inclusive of interconnection costs and transmission upgrades, of approximately $648 million, or $76 million less than originally estimated, along with other project details and supporting evidence, to enable the LPSC to review the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s management of the project. A hearing is scheduled in March 2016.

Union Power Station

In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed its application with the LPSC for approval of the acquisition and cost recovery of two power blocks of the Union Power Station for an expected base purchase price of approximately $237 million per power block, subject to adjustments. In September 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana agreed to settlement terms with all parties for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s purchase of the two power blocks. In October 2015 the LPSC voted unanimously to approve the uncontested settlement which finds, among other things, that acquisition of Power Blocks 3 and 4 is in the public interest and, therefore, prudent. The business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana received regulatory approval and closed in October 2015 making Entergy Louisiana the named purchaser of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station.

Business Combination

In connection with the approval of the business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana, the LPSC authorized the filing of a single, joint formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. The joint evaluation report was filed in September 2015 and reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.09%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following adjustments are required under the formula rate plan, however: a decrease in the additional capacity mechanism for Entergy Louisiana of $17.8 million; an increase in the additional capacity mechanism for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana of $4.3 million; and a reduction of $5.5 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism, to collect approximately $35.7 million on a combined-company basis. Under the order approving the business combination, following completion of the prescribed review period, rates were implemented with the first billing cycle of December 2015, subject to refund. In November 2015, the LPSC staff filed objections, corrections, and comments identifying several issues for potential rate adjustments, including: preservation of previously-raised issues; the implementation of the $10 million increase in annual formula rate plan revenue over abbreviated rate-effective period; the level of adjustment to rates for the extended power uprate at System Energy, as well as asserting a general reservation of rights for further review of adjustments related to Ninemile 6 and the Waterford 3 provision for rate refund; change to gross plant, depreciation, and net plant components of rate base; regulatory debits and credits; adjustment for business combination expenses and the implementation of certain guaranteed customer credits. See “Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination” below for further discussion of the business combination.

Retail Rates - Gas

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

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

In accordance with the settlement of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2012, in August 2014 Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted for consideration a proposal for implementation of an infrastructure rider to recover expenditures associated with strategic plant investment and relocation projects mandated by local governments. After review by the LPSC staff and inclusion of certain customer safeguards required by the LPSC staff, in December 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the LPSC staff submitted a joint settlement for implementation of an accelerated gas pipe replacement program providing for the replacement of approximately 100 miles of pipe over the next ten years, as well as relocation of certain existing pipe resulting from local government-related infrastructure projects, and for a rider to recover the investment associated with these projects. The rider allows for recovery of approximately $65 million over ten years. The rider recovery will be adjusted on a quarterly basis to include actual investment incurred for the prior quarter and is subject to the following conditions, among others: a ten-year term; application of any earnings in excess of 10.45% as an offset to the revenue requirement of the infrastructure rider; adherence to a specified spending plan, within plus or minus 20% annually; annual filings comparing actual versus planned rider spending with actual spending and explanation of variances exceeding 10%; and an annual true-up. The joint settlement was approved by the LPSC in January 2015. Implementation of the infrastructure rider commenced with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of April 2015.

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 resulted 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 was implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015.

In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2015. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 10.22%, which is within the authorized bandwidth, therefore requiring no change in rates. Absent approval of an extension by the LPSC, test year 2015 is the final year under the current gas rate stabilization plan. In February 2016, however, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the terms of the gas rate stabilization plan for an additional three-year term.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Formula Rate Plan Filings

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

In June 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed its first general rate case before the MPSC in almost 12 years.  The rate filing laid out Entergy Mississippi’s plans for improving reliability, modernizing the grid, maintaining its workforce, stabilizing rates, utilizing new technologies, and attracting new industry to its service territory.  Entergy Mississippi requested a net increase in revenue of $49 million for bills rendered during calendar year 2015, including $30 million resulting from new depreciation rates to update the estimated service life of assets.  In addition, the filing proposed, among other things: 1) realigning cost recovery of the Attala and Hinds power plant acquisitions from the power management rider to base rates; 2) including certain MISO-related revenues and expenses in the power management rider; 3) power management rider changes that reflect the changes in costs and revenues that will accompany Entergy Mississippi’s withdrawal from participation in the System Agreement; and 4) a formula rate plan forward test year to allow for known changes in expenses and revenues for the rate effective period.  Entergy Mississippi proposed maintaining the current authorized return on common equity of 10.59%. 

In October 2014, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into and filed joint stipulations that addressed the majority of issues in the proceeding. The stipulations provided for:

• an approximate $16 million net increase in revenues, which reflected an agreed upon 10.07% return on common equity;

• revision of Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan by providing Entergy Mississippi with the ability to reflect known and measurable changes to historical rate base and certain expense amounts; resolving uncertainty around and obviating the need for an additional rate filing in connection with Entergy Mississippi’s withdrawal from participation in the System Agreement; updating depreciation rates; and moving costs associated with the Attala and Hinds generating plants from the power management rider to base rates;

• recovery of non-fuel MISO-related costs through a separate rider for that purpose;

• a deferral of $6 million in other operation and maintenance expenses associated with the Baxter Wilson outage and a determination that the regulatory asset should accrue carrying costs, with amortization of the regulatory asset over two years beginning in February 2015, and a provision that the capital costs will be reflected in rate base. See Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Baxter Wilson outage; and

• consolidation of the new nuclear generation development costs proceeding with the general rate case proceeding for hearing purposes and a determination that Entergy Mississippi would not further pursue, except as noted below, recovery of the costs that were approved for deferral by the MPSC in November 2011. The stipulations state, however, that, if Entergy Mississippi decides to move forward with nuclear development in Mississippi, it can at that time re-present for consideration by the MPSC only those costs directly associated with the existing early site permit (ESP), to the extent that the costs are verifiable and prudent and the ESP is still valid and relevant to any such option pursued. See “New Nuclear Generation Development Costs - Entergy Mississippi” below for further discussion of the new nuclear generation development costs proceeding and subsequent write-off in 2014 of the regulatory asset related to those costs.

In December 2014 the MPSC issued an order accepting the stipulations in their entirety and approving the revenue adjustments and rate changes effective with February 2015 bills.

Filings with the City Council

(Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans)

In March 2013, Entergy Louisiana filed a rate case for the Algiers area, which is in New Orleans and is regulated by the City Council. Entergy Louisiana requested a rate increase of $13 million over three years, including a 10.4% return on common equity and a formula rate plan mechanism identical to its LPSC request. In January 2014 the City Council Advisors filed direct testimony recommending a rate increase of $5.56 million over three years, including an 8.13% return on common equity. In June 2014 the City Council unanimously approved a settlement that includes the following:

• a $9.3 million base rate revenue increase to be phased in on a levelized basis over four years;

• recovery of an additional $853 thousand annually through a MISO recovery rider; and

• the adoption of a four-year formula rate plan requiring the filing of annual evaluation reports in May of each year, commencing May 2015, with resulting rates being implemented in October of each year. The formula rate plan includes a midpoint target authorized return on common equity of 9.95% with a +/- 40 basis point bandwidth.

The rate increase was effective with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of July 2014. Additional compliance filings were made with the Council in October 2014 for approval of the form of certain rate riders, including among others, a Ninemile 6 non-fuel cost recovery interim rider, allowing for contemporaneous recovery of capacity costs related to the commencement of commercial operation of the Ninemile 6 generating unit and a purchased power capacity cost recovery rider. The monthly Ninemile 6 cost recovery interim rider was implemented in December 2014 to initially collect $915 thousand from Entergy Louisiana customers in the Algiers area. See “Algiers Asset Transfer ” below for discussion of the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that serve Algiers customers.

(Entergy New Orleans)

Formula Rate Plan

In April 2009 the City Council approved a three-year formula rate plan for Entergy New Orleans, with terms including an 11.1% benchmark electric return on common equity (ROE) with a +/-40 basis point bandwidth and a 10.75% benchmark gas ROE with a +/-50 basis point bandwidth.  Earnings outside the bandwidth reset to the midpoint benchmark ROE, with rates changing on a prospective basis depending on whether Entergy New Orleans was over- or under-earning.  The formula rate plan also included a recovery mechanism for City Council-approved capacity additions, plus provisions for extraordinary cost changes and force majeure events.

In May 2012, Entergy New Orleans filed its electric and gas formula rate plan evaluation reports for the 2011 test year.  Subsequent adjustments agreed upon with the City Council Advisors indicate a $4.9 million electric base revenue increase and a $0.05 million gas base revenue increase as necessary under the formula rate plan.  As part of the original filing, Entergy New Orleans also requested to increase annual funding for its storm reserve by approximately $5.7 million for five years.  On September 26, 2012, Entergy New Orleans made a filing with the City Council that implemented the $4.9 million electric formula rate plan rate increase and the $0.05 million gas formula rate plan rate increase.  The new rates were effective with the first billing cycle in October 2012.  In August 2013 the City Council unanimously approved a settlement of all issues in the formula rate plan proceeding.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Entergy New Orleans implemented an approximately $1.625 million net decrease to the electric rates that were in effect prior to the electric rate increase implemented in October 2012, with no change in gas rates.  Entergy New Orleans refunded to customers approximately $6 million over the four-month period from September 2013 through December 2013 to make the electric rate decrease effective as of the first billing cycle of October 2012.  Entergy New Orleans had previously recorded provisions for the majority of the refund to customers, but recorded an additional $1.1 million provision in second quarter 2013 as a result of the settlement. Entergy New Orleans’s formula rate plan ended with the 2011 test year and has not been extended.  

See “Algiers Asset Transfer ” below for discussion of the Algiers asset transfer. As a provision of the settlement agreement approved by the City Council in May 2015 providing for the Algiers asset transfer, it was agreed that, with limited exceptions, no action may be taken with respect to Entergy New Orleans’s base rates until rates are implemented from a base rate case that must be filed for its electric and gas operations in 2018. This provision eliminated the formula rate plan applicable to Algiers operations. The limited exceptions include continued implementation of the remaining two years of the four-year phased-in rate increase for its operations in the Algiers area and certain exceptional cost increases or decreases in its base revenue requirement. An additional provision of the settlement agreement allows for continued recovery of the revenue requirement associated with the capacity and energy from Ninemile 6 received by Entergy New Orleans under a power purchase agreement with Entergy Louisiana (Algiers PPA). The settlement authorizes Entergy New Orleans to recover the remaining revenue requirement related to the Algiers PPA through base rates charged to Algiers customers. The settlement also provided for continued implementation of the Algiers MISO recovery rider.

In addition to the Algiers PPA, Entergy New Orleans has a separate power purchase agreement with Entergy Louisiana for 20% of the capacity and energy of the Ninemile Unit 6 generating station (Ninemile PPA), which commenced operation in December 2014. Initially, recovery of the non-fuel costs associated with the Ninemile PPA was authorized through a special Ninemile 6 rider billed to only Entergy New Orleans customers outside of Algiers.

In August 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to proceed with the acquisition of Union Power Block 1, with an expected base purchase price of approximately $237 million, subject to adjustments, and seeking approval of the recovery of the associated costs. In November 2015 the City Council issued written resolutions and an order approving an agreement in principle between Entergy New Orleans and City Council advisors providing that the purchase of Union Power Block 1 and related assets by Entergy New Orleans is prudent and in the public interest. The City Council authorized expansion of the special Ninemile 6 rider, discussed above, to cover the non-fuel purchased power from Ninemile 6 as well as the revenue requirement associated with the acquisition of Union Power Block 1, upon closing of the transaction.

A 2008 rate case settlement included $3.1 million per year in electric rates to fund the Energy Smart energy efficiency programs.  In September 2009 the City Council approved the energy efficiency programs filed by Entergy New Orleans.  The rate settlement provides an incentive for Entergy New Orleans to meet or exceed energy savings targets set by the City Council and provides a mechanism for Entergy New Orleans to recover lost contribution to fixed costs associated with the energy savings generated from the energy efficiency programs. In October 2013 the City Council approved the extension of the current Energy Smart program through December 2014. The City Council approved the use of $3.5 million of rough production cost equalization funds for program costs. In addition, Entergy New Orleans will be allowed to recover its lost contribution to fixed costs and to earn an incentive for meeting program goals. In January 2015 the City Council approved extending the Energy Smart program through March 2015 and using $1.2 million of rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs for the extended period. Additionally, the City Council approved funding for the Energy Smart 2 programs from April 2015 through March 2017 using the remainder of the approximately $12.8 million of 2014 rough production cost equalization funds, and with any remaining costs being recovered through the fuel adjustment clause. This funding methodology was modified in November 2015 when the City Council directed Entergy New Orleans to use a combination of guaranteed customer savings related to a prior agreement with the City Council and rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs prior to recovering any costs through the fuel adjustment clause.

Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas)

Retail Rates

2011 Rate Case

In November 2011, Entergy Texas filed a rate case requesting a $112 million base rate increase reflecting a 10.6% return on common equity based on an adjusted June 2011 test year.  The rate case also proposed a purchased power recovery rider.  On January 12, 2012, the PUCT voted not to address the purchased power recovery rider in the current rate case, but the PUCT voted to set a baseline in the rate case proceeding that would be applicable if a purchased power capacity rider is approved in a separate proceeding.  In April 2012 the PUCT Staff filed direct testimony recommending a base rate increase of $66 million and a 9.6% return on common equity.  The PUCT Staff, however, subsequently filed a statement of position in the proceeding indicating that it was still evaluating the position it would ultimately take in the case regarding Entergy Texas’s recovery of purchased power capacity costs and Entergy Texas’s proposal to defer its MISO transition expenses.  In April 2012, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony indicating a revised request for a $105 million base rate increase.  A hearing was held in late-April through early-May 2012.

In September 2012 the PUCT issued an order approving a $28 million rate increase, effective July 2012.  The order includes a finding that “a return on common equity (ROE) of 9.80 percent will allow [Entergy Texas] a reasonable opportunity to earn a reasonable return on invested capital.”  The order also provides for increases in depreciation rates and the annual storm reserve accrual.  The order also reduced Entergy Texas’s proposed purchased power capacity costs, stating that they are not known and measurable; reduced Entergy Texas’s regulatory assets associated with Hurricane Rita; excluded from rate recovery capitalized financially-based incentive compensation; included $1.6 million of MISO transition expense in base rates, and reduced Entergy’s Texas’s fuel reconciliation recovery by $4 million because it disagreed with the line-loss factor used in the calculation.  After considering the progress of the proceeding in light of the PUCT order, Entergy Texas recorded in the third quarter 2012 an approximate $24 million charge to recognize that assets associated with Hurricane Rita, financially-based incentive compensation, and fuel recovery are no longer probable of recovery.  Entergy Texas continues to believe that it is entitled to recover these prudently incurred costs, however, and it filed a motion for rehearing regarding these and several other issues in the PUCT’s order on October 4, 2012.  Several other parties also filed motions for rehearing of the PUCT’s order.  The PUCT subsequently denied rehearing of substantive issues.  Several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. A hearing was held in July 2014. In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced above, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Briefs were filed by the appealing and responding parties in the first half of 2015. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. The appeal is currently pending.

2013 Rate Case

In September 2013, Entergy Texas filed a rate case requesting a $38.6 million base rate increase reflecting a 10.4% return on common equity based on an adjusted test year ending March 31, 2013. The rate case also proposed (1) a rough production cost equalization adjustment rider recovering Entergy Texas’s payment to Entergy New Orleans to achieve rough production cost equalization based on calendar year 2012 production costs and (2) a rate case expense rider recovering the cost of the 2013 rate case and certain costs associated with previous rate cases. The rate case filing also included a request to reconcile $0.9 billion of fuel and purchased power costs and fuel revenues covering the period July 2011 through March 2013. The fuel reconciliation also reflects special circumstances fuel cost recovery of approximately $22 million of purchased power capacity costs. In January 2014 the PUCT staff filed direct testimony recommending a retail rate reduction of $0.3 million and a 9.2% return on common equity. In March 2014, Entergy Texas filed an Agreed Motion for Interim Rates. The motion explained that the parties to this proceeding have agreed that Entergy Texas should be allowed to implement new rates reflecting an $18.5 million base rate increase, effective for usage on and after April 1, 2014, as well as recovery of charges for rough production cost equalization and rate case expenses. In March 2014 the State Office of Administrative Hearings, the body assigned to hear the case, approved the motion. In April 2014, Entergy Texas filed a unanimous stipulation in this case. Among other things, the stipulation provides for an $18.5 million base rate increase, provides for recovery over three years of the calendar year 2012 rough production cost equalization charges and rate case expenses, and states a 9.8% return on common equity. In addition, the stipulation finalizes the fuel and purchased power reconciliation covering the period July 2011 through March 2013, with the parties stipulating an immaterial fuel disallowance. No special circumstances recovery of purchased power capacity costs was allowed. In April 2014 the State Office of Administrative Hearings remanded the case back to the PUCT for final processing. In May 2014 the PUCT approved the stipulation. No motions for rehearing were filed during the statutory rehearing period.

2015 Rate Case

In June 2015, Entergy Texas filed a rate case that included pro forma adjustments to reflect the proposed acquisition of Union Power Station Power Block 1, which is one of four units that comprise the Union Power Station near El Dorado, Arkansas. Previously in 2015 Entergy Texas made a filing with the PUCT requesting that it grant a certificate of convenience and necessity for the Union acquisition. In July 2015 the PUCT requested briefing on legal and policy issues related to, among other things, the propriety of rate recovery for the Union Power transaction given the uncertainty of the actual closing date of the transaction and the commencement of the rate year, as well as Entergy Texas’s requirement for acceptable rate treatment as a condition to closing the transaction. Also in July 2015, in connection with the requested briefing, the PUCT staff and certain parties filed briefs concluding that Entergy Texas should not be permitted recovery for the Union Power Station purchase in the rate case. Based on the opposition to the acquisition of the power block, Entergy Texas determined it was appropriate to seek to dismiss the certificate of convenience and necessity filing and withdraw the rate case. In July 2015, Entergy Texas filed its notice of withdrawal of its base rate case and the ALJs in the case dismissed the case from the dockets of the State Office of Administrative Hearings and the PUCT. In the third quarter 2015, Entergy Texas wrote off $4.7 million in rate case expenses and acquisition costs related to the proposed Union Power Station acquisition.

Other Filings

In September 2014, Entergy Texas filed for a distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider based on a law that was passed in 2011 allowing for the recovery of increases in capital costs associated with distribution plant. Entergy Texas requested collection of approximately $7 million annually from retail customers. The parties reached a unanimous settlement authorizing recovery of $3.6 million annually commencing with usage on and after January 1, 2015. A State Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ issued an order in December 2014 authorizing this recovery on an interim basis and remanded the case to the PUCT. In February 2015 the PUCT entered a final order, making the settlement final and the interim rates permanent. In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed to amend its distribution cost recovery factor rider. Entergy Texas requested an increase in recovery under the rider of $6.5 million, for a total collection of $10.1 million annually from retail customers. In October 2015 intervenors and PUCT staff filed testimony opposing, in part, Entergy Texas’s request. In November 2015 Entergy Texas and the parties filed an unopposed settlement agreement and supporting documents. The settlement established an annual revenue requirement of $8.65 million for the amended DCRF rider, with the resulting rates effective for usage on and after January 1, 2016. The PUCT approved the settlement agreement in February 2016.

In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony was filed in November 2015, with the PUCT staff and other parties proposing various disallowances that would reduce the requested increase. The largest remaining single disallowance is $3.4 million which would impose a load growth adjustment on Entergy Texas’s TCRF rider. A hearing on the merits was held in December 2015. A proposal for decision from the ALJ is expected in first quarter 2016.

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination

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 application, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana identified potential benefits, including enhanced economic and customer diversity, enhanced geographic and supply diversity, and greater administrative efficiency. In the initial proceedings with the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana estimated that the business combination could produce up to $128 million in measurable customer benefits during the first ten years following the transaction’s close including proposed guaranteed customer credits of $97 million in the first nine years.  In April 2015 the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony in the LPSC business combination proceeding. The testimony recommended an extensive set of conditions that would be required in order to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The LPSC staff’s primary concern appeared to be potential shifting in fuel costs between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. In May 2015, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony. After the testimony was filed with the LPSC, the parties engaged in settlement discussions that ultimately led to the execution of an uncontested stipulated settlement (“stipulated settlement”), which was filed with the LPSC in July 2015. Through the stipulated settlement, the parties agreed to terms upon which to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The stipulated settlement, which was either joined, or unopposed, by all parties to the LPSC proceeding, represents a compromise of stakeholder positions and was the result of an extensive period of analysis, discovery, and negotiation. The stipulated settlement provides $107 million in guaranteed customer benefits during the first nine years following the transaction’s close. Additionally, the combined company will honor the 2013 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana rate case settlements, including the commitments that (1) there will be no rate increase for legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers for the 2014 test year, and (2) through the 2016 test year formula rate plan, Entergy Louisiana (as a combined entity) will not raise rates by more than $30 million, net of the $10 million rate increase included in the Entergy Louisiana legacy formula rate plan. The stipulated settlement also describes the process for implementing a fuel-tracking mechanism that is designed to address potential effects arising from the shifting of fuel costs between legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers as a result of the combination of those companies’ fuel adjustment clauses. Specifically, the fuel tracker would reallocate such cost shifts as between legacy customers of the companies on an after-the-fact basis, and the calculation of the fuel tracker will be submitted annually in a compliance filing. The stipulated settlement also provides that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana are permitted to defer certain external costs that were incurred to achieve the business combination’s customer benefits. The deferred amount, which shall not exceed $25 million, will be subject to a prudence review and amortized over a 10-year period. In 2015 deferrals of $16 million for these external costs were recorded. A hearing on the stipulated settlement in the LPSC proceeding was held in July 2015. In August 2015 the LPSC approved the business combination.

In April 2015 the FERC approved applications requesting authorization for the business combination. In August 2015 the NRC approved the applications for the River Bend and Waterford 3 license transfers as part of the steps to complete the business combination.

On October 1, 2015, the businesses formerly conducted by Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana were combined into a single public utility. With the completion of the business combination, Entergy Louisiana holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed the liabilities, of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The combination was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control. The effect of the business combination has been retrospectively applied to Entergy Louisiana's financial statements that are presented in this report. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the customer credits resulting from the business combination.

Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans)

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 supported the provision of service to Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers assets transfer. In May 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement authorizing the Algiers assets transfer and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in May 2015. On September 1, 2015, Entergy Louisiana transferred its Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans for a purchase price of approximately $85 million, subject to closing adjustments. Entergy New Orleans paid Entergy Louisiana $59.6 million, including final true-ups, from available cash and issued a note payable to Entergy Louisiana in the amount of $25.5 million. See Note 1 to the financial statements for a discussion of the accounting for the Algiers asset transfer and the basis of presentation for the Entergy New Orleans’s financial statements presented in this report.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

The Utility operating companies historically have engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which is a rate schedule that has been approved by the FERC.  Certain of the Utility operating companies’ retail regulators and other parties are pursuing litigation involving the System Agreement at the FERC.  The proceedings include challenges to the allocation of costs as defined by the System Agreement and allegations of imprudence by the Utility operating companies in their execution of their obligations under the System Agreement.

In June 2005 the FERC issued a decision in System Agreement litigation that had been commenced by the LPSC, and essentially affirmed its decision in a December 2005 order on rehearing.  The FERC decision concluded, among other things, that:

• The System Agreement no longer roughly equalizes total production costs among the Utility operating companies.

• In order to reach rough production cost equalization, the FERC imposed a bandwidth remedy by which each company’s total annual production costs will have to be within +/- 11% of Entergy System average total annual production costs.

• In calculating the production costs for this purpose under the FERC’s order, output from the Vidalia hydroelectric power plant will not reflect the actual Vidalia price for the year but is priced at that year’s average price paid by Entergy Louisiana for the exchange of electric energy under Service Schedule MSS-3 of the System Agreement, thereby reducing the amount of Vidalia costs reflected in the comparison of the Utility operating companies’ total production costs.

• The remedy ordered by FERC in 2005 required no refunds and became effective based on calendar year 2006 production costs and the first reallocation payments were made in 2007.

The FERC’s decision reallocates total production costs of the Utility operating companies whose relative total production costs expressed as a percentage of Entergy System average production costs are outside an upper or lower bandwidth.  Under the current circumstances, this will be accomplished by payments from Utility operating companies whose production costs are more than 11% below Entergy System average production costs to Utility operating companies whose production costs are more than the Entergy System average production cost, with payments going first to those Utility operating companies whose total production costs are farthest above the Entergy System average.

The financial consequences of the FERC’s decision are determined by the total production cost of each Utility operating company, which are affected by the mix of solid fuel and gas-fired generation available to each company and the costs of natural gas and purchased power.  Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Texas, and Entergy Mississippi are more dependent upon gas-fired generation sources than Entergy Arkansas or Entergy New Orleans.  Of these, Entergy Arkansas is the least dependent upon gas-fired generation sources.  Therefore, increases in natural gas prices generally increased the amount by which Entergy Arkansas’s total production costs were below the Entergy System average production costs.

The LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers appealed the FERC’s December 2005 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  Entergy and the City of New Orleans intervened in the various appeals.  The D.C. Circuit issued its decision in April 2008.  The D.C. Circuit concluded that the FERC’s orders had failed to adequately explain both its conclusion that it was prohibited from ordering refunds for the 20-month period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003 and its determination to implement the bandwidth remedy commencing on January 1, 2006, rather than June 1, 2005.  The D.C. Circuit remanded the case to the FERC for further proceedings on these issues.

In October 2011, the FERC issued an order addressing the D.C. Circuit remand on these two issues.  On the first issue, the FERC concluded that it did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-month period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003.  Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, which is discussed in a separate section below, the FERC concluded that the refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in that proceeding.  On the second issue, the FERC reversed its prior decision and ordered that the prospective bandwidth remedy begin on June 1, 2005 (the date of its initial order in the proceeding) rather than January 1, 2006, as it had previously ordered.  Pursuant to the October 2011 order, Entergy was required to calculate the additional bandwidth payments for the period June - December 2005 utilizing the bandwidth formula tariff prescribed by the FERC that was filed in a December 2006 compliance filing and accepted by the FERC in an April 2007 order.  As is the case with bandwidth remedy payments, these payments and receipts will ultimately be paid by Utility operating company customers to other Utility operating company customers. 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 an 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. In October 2015 the FERC issued three orders related to the commencement of the remedy on June 1, 2005 and the inclusion of interest on the amount for the period June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. Specifically, the FERC rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of its decision to include interest on the amount for the seven-month period. The FERC also rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of the order rejecting the compliance filing with regard to the issue of interest. Finally, the FERC set for hearing and settlement procedures the 2014 compliance filing that included the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. In setting the compliance filing for hearing, the FERC rejected the APSC’s protest that Entergy Arkansas should not be subject to the filing because Entergy Arkansas would be making the payments during a period following its exit from the System Agreement. The hearing on the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 is scheduled to occur in July 2016.

In December 2011, Entergy filed with the FERC its compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s October 2011 order.  The filing shows the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$156
Entergy Louisiana	($75)
Entergy Mississippi	($33)
Entergy New Orleans	($5)
Entergy Texas	($43)

Entergy Arkansas made its payment in January 2012.  In February 2012, Entergy Arkansas filed for an interim adjustment to its production cost allocation rider requesting that the $156 million payment be collected from customers over the 22-month period from March 2012 through December 2013.  In March 2012 the APSC issued an order stating that the payment can be recovered from retail customers through the production cost allocation rider, subject to refund.  The LPSC and the APSC have requested rehearing of the FERC’s October 2011 order.  In December 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for a writ of mandamus at the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In its petition, the LPSC requested that the D.C. Circuit issue an order compelling the FERC to issue a final order on pending rehearing requests. In January 2014 the D.C. Circuit denied the LPSC’s petition. The APSC, the LPSC, the PUCT, and other parties intervened in the December 2011 compliance filing proceeding, and the APSC and the LPSC also filed protests.

In February 2014 the FERC issued a rehearing order addressing its October 2011 order. The FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing on the issues of whether the bandwidth remedy should be made effective earlier than June 1, 2005, and whether refunds should be ordered for the 20-month refund effective period. The FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request on the issue of interest on the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period, requiring that interest be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date those bandwidth payments/receipts are made. Also in February 2014 the FERC issued an order rejecting the December 2011 compliance filing that calculated the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. The FERC order required a new compliance filing that calculates the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period based on monthly data for the seven individual months including interest pursuant to the February 2014 rehearing order. Entergy has sought rehearing of the February 2014 orders with respect to the FERC’s determinations regarding interest. In April 2014 the LPSC filed a petition for review of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The appeal is pending.

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

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$68
Entergy Louisiana	($10)
Entergy Mississippi	($11)
Entergy New Orleans	$2
Entergy Texas	($49)

These payments were made in May 2014. The LPSC, City Council, and APSC have filed protests.

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

Each May since 2007 Entergy has filed with the FERC the rates to implement the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  These filings show the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies are necessary to achieve rough production cost equalization as defined by the FERC’s orders:

	Payments (Receipts)
	2007			2008			2009			2010			2011			2012			2013			2014
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas		$252			$252			$390			$41			$77			$41			$—			$—
Entergy Louisiana		($211	)		($160	)		($247	)		($22	)		($12	)		($41	)		$—			$—
Entergy Mississippi		($41	)		($20	)		($24	)		($19	)		($40	)		$—			$—			$—
Entergy New Orleans		$—			($7	)		$—			$—			($25	)		$—			($15	)		($15	)
Entergy Texas		($30	)		($65	)		($119	)		$—			$—			$—			$15			$15

The Utility operating companies record, as necessary, accounts payable or accounts receivable to reflect the rough production cost equalization payments and receipts required to implement the FERC’s remedy.  When accounts payable are recorded, a corresponding regulatory asset is recorded for the right to collect the payments from customers. When accounts receivable are recorded, a corresponding regulatory liability is recorded for the obligations to pass the receipts on to customers.  As discussed below, no payments and receipts were required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Entergy Arkansas ceased participating in the System Agreement on December 18, 2013 and was not part of the calendar year 2013 or 2014 production costs calculations.

The APSC has approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Texas is recovering its 2013 rough production cost equalization payment over three years beginning April 2014. Entergy Texas included its 2014 rough production cost equalization payment as component of an interim fuel refund made in 2014. Management believes that any changes in the allocation of production costs resulting from the FERC’s decision and related retail proceedings should result in similar rate changes for retail customers, subject to specific circumstances that have caused trapped costs.  

Comprehensive Bandwidth Recalculation for 2007, 2008, and 2009 Rate Filing Proceedings

In July 2014 the FERC issued four orders in connection with various Service Schedule MSS-3 rough production cost equalization formula compliance filings and rehearing requests. Specifically, the FERC accepted Entergy Services’ revised methodologies for calculating certain cost components of the formula and affirmed its prior ruling requiring interest on the true-up amounts. The FERC directed that a comprehensive recalculation of the formula be performed for the filing years 2007, 2008, and 2009 based on calendar years 2006, 2007, and 2008 production costs. In September 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC its compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts, including interest, among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s orders for the 2007, 2008, and 2009 rate filing proceedings. The filing shows the following additional payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$38
Entergy Louisiana	($38)
Entergy Mississippi	$16
Entergy New Orleans	($1)
Entergy Texas	($15)

Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi made the payments in September and October 2014.

The FERC proceedings that resulted from rate filings made in 2007, 2008, and 2009 have been resolved by various orders issued by the FERC and appellate courts. See below for a discussion of rate filings since 2009 and the comprehensive recalculation filing directed by the FERC in the proceeding related to the 2010 rate filing.

2010 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2009 Production Costs

In May 2010, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2010 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding, and supplemented the filing in September 2010.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC and the City Council, which also filed protests.  In July 2010 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2010, subject to refund, and set the proceeding for hearing and settlement procedures.  Settlement procedures have been terminated, and the ALJ scheduled hearings to begin in March 2011.  Subsequently, in January 2011 the ALJ issued an order directing the parties and FERC Staff to show cause why this proceeding should not be stayed pending the issuance of FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review.  In March 2011 the ALJ issued an order placing this proceeding in abeyance. In October 2013 the FERC issued an order granting clarification and denying rehearing with respect to its October 2011 rehearing order in this proceeding. The FERC clarified that in a bandwidth proceeding parties can challenge erroneous inputs, implementation errors, or prudence of cost inputs, but challenges to the bandwidth formula itself must be raised in a Federal Power Act section 206 complaint or section 205 filing. Subsequently in October 2013 the presiding ALJ lifted the stay order holding in abeyance the hearing previously ordered by the FERC and directing that the remaining issues proceed to a hearing on the merits. The hearing was held in March 2014 and the presiding ALJ issued an initial decision in September 2014. Briefs on exception were filed in October 2014. In December 2015 the FERC issued an order affirming the initial decision in part and rejecting the initial decision in part. Among other things, the December 2015 order directs Entergy Services to submit a compliance filing, the results of which may affect the rough production cost equalization filings made for the June - December 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 test periods. In January 2016 the LPSC, the APSC, and Entergy Services filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s December 2015 order. In February 2016, Entergy Services submitted the compliance filing ordered in the December 2015 order.  The result of the true-up payments and receipts for the recalculation of production costs resulted in the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$2
Entergy Louisiana	$6
Entergy Mississippi	($4)
Entergy New Orleans	($1)
Entergy Texas	($3)

2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs

In May 2011, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2011 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest.  In July 2011 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2011, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review. In January 2014 the LPSC filed a petition for a writ of mandamus at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In its petition, the LPSC requested that the Fifth Circuit issue an order compelling the FERC to issue a final order in several proceedings related to the System Agreement, including the 2011 rate filing based on calendar year 2010 production costs and the 2012 and 2013 rate filings discussed below. In March 2014 the Fifth Circuit rejected the LPSC’s petition for a writ of mandamus. In December 2014 the FERC rescinded its earlier abeyance order and consolidated the 2011 rate filing with the 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs

In May 2012, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2012 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest.  In August 2012 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 2012, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review. In December 2014 the FERC rescinded its earlier abeyance order and consolidated the 2012 rate filing with the 2011, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs

In May 2013, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2013 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest. The City Council intervened and filed comments related to including the outcome of a related FERC proceeding in the 2013 cost equalization calculation. In August 2013 the FERC issued an order accepting the 2013 rates, effective June 1, 2013, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review. In December 2014 the FERC rescinded its earlier abeyance order and consolidated the 2013 Rate Filing with the 2011, 2012, and 2014 Rate Filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs

In May 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2014 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest. The City Council intervened and filed comments. In December 2014 the FERC issued an order accepting the 2014 rates, effective June 1, 2014, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and consolidated the 2014 Rate Filing with the 2011, 2012, and 2013 Rate Filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

Consolidated 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Rate Filing Proceedings

As discussed above, in December 2014 the FERC consolidated the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. 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. In July 2015 the parties filed direct and answering testimony. Among other issues with the pending bandwidth calculations, the LPSC challenged the administration of the accounting for joint account sales of energy in the intra-system bill. In August and September 2015 the parties filed additional rounds of testimony in the consolidated hearing for the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings. In October 2015 the LPSC withdrew its testimony challenging the accounting for joint account sales of energy. The hearings occurred in November 2015, and an initial decision from the ALJ is expected in July 2016.

2015 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2014 Production Costs

In May 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2015 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing showed that no payments and receipts were required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC and City Council intervened and filed comments. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2015 rates for filing, suspended them for a nominal period, to become effective June 1, 2015, as requested, subject to refund, and set them for hearing and settlement judge procedures.

Calendar Year 2015 Production Costs

Entergy preliminarily estimates that no payments and receipts are required in 2016 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2015 production costs. The actual payments/receipts for 2016, based on calendar year 2015 production costs, will not be calculated until the Utility operating companies’ 2015 FERC Form 1s have been filed. Once the calculation is completed, it will be filed at the FERC. The level of any payments and receipts is significantly affected by a number of factors, including, among others, weather, the price of alternative fuels, the operating characteristics of the Entergy System generating fleet, and multiple factors affecting the calculation of the non-fuel related revenue requirement components of the total production costs, such as plant investment. The calculation based on 2015 production costs will be the last rough production cost equalization filing submitted by the Utility operating companies because the System Agreement will terminate at the end of August 2016.

Utility Operating Company Termination of System Agreement Participation

Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi ceased participating in the System Agreement effective December 18, 2013 and November 7, 2015, respectively. Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas will terminate participation in the System Agreement on August 31, 2016, which will result in the termination of the System Agreement in its entirety pursuant to a settlement agreement approved by the FERC in December 2015.

In connection with the System Agreement termination settlement agreement, it was determined that the purchase power agreements, referred to as the jurisdictional separation plan PPAs, between Entergy Texas and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana that were put in place for certain legacy gas units at the time of Entergy Gulf States’s separation into Entergy Texas and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana will terminate effective with System Agreement termination. Similarly, the PPA between Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Texas for the Calcasieu unit also will terminate. Currently, the jurisdictional separation plan PPAs are the means by which Entergy Texas receives payment for its receivable associated with Entergy Louisiana’s Spindletop gas storage facility regulatory asset. As a result of the System Agreement termination settlement agreement, effective with the termination date, Entergy Texas will no longer receive payments from Entergy Louisiana related to the Spindletop storage facility which resulted in a write-off recorded in 2015 by Entergy Texas of $23.5 million ($15.3 million net-of-tax).

Interruptible Load Proceeding

In April 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in the LPSC’s appeal of the FERC’s March 2004 and April 2005 orders related to the treatment under the System Agreement of the Utility operating companies’ interruptible loads.  In its opinion the D.C. Circuit concluded that the FERC (1) acted arbitrarily and capriciously by allowing the Utility operating companies to phase-in the effects of the elimination of the interruptible load over a 12-month period of time; (2) failed to adequately explain why refunds could not be ordered under Section 206(c) of the Federal Power Act; and (3) exercised appropriately its discretion to defer addressing the cost of sulfur dioxide allowances until a later time.  The D.C. Circuit remanded the matter to the FERC for a more considered determination on the issue of refunds.  The FERC issued its order on remand in September 2007, in which it directed Entergy to make a compliance filing removing all interruptible load from the computation of peak load responsibility commencing April 1, 2004 and to issue any necessary refunds to reflect this change.  In addition, the order directed the Utility operating companies to make refunds for the period May 1995 through July 1996.  In November 2007 the Utility operating companies filed a refund report describing the refunds to be issued pursuant to the FERC’s orders.  The LPSC filed a protest to the refund report in December 2007, and the Utility operating companies filed an answer to the protest in January 2008.  The refunds were made in October 2008 by the Utility operating companies that owed refunds to the Utility operating companies that were due a refund under the decision.  The APSC and the Utility operating companies appealed the FERC decisions to the D.C. Circuit.   

Following the filing of petitioners’ initial briefs, the FERC filed a motion requesting the D.C. Circuit hold the appeal of the FERC’s decisions ordering refunds in the interruptible load proceeding in abeyance and remand the record to the FERC.  The D.C. Circuit granted the FERC’s unopposed motion in June 2009.  In December 2009 the FERC established a paper hearing to determine whether the FERC had the authority and, if so, whether it would be appropriate to order refunds resulting from changes in the treatment of interruptible load in the allocation of capacity costs by the Utility operating companies.  In August 2010 the FERC issued an order stating that it has the authority and refunds are appropriate.  The APSC, MPSC, and Entergy requested rehearing of the FERC’s decision.  In June 2011 the FERC issued an order granting rehearing in part and denying rehearing in part, in which the FERC determined to invoke its discretion to deny refunds.  The FERC held that in this case where “the Entergy system as a whole collected the proper level of revenue, but, as was later established, incorrectly allocated peak load responsibility among the various Entergy operating companies….the Commission will apply here our usual practice in such cases, invoking our equitable discretion to not order refunds, notwithstanding our authority to do so.”  The LPSC has requested rehearing of the FERC’s June 2011 decision.  In July 2011 the refunds made in the fourth quarter 2009 described above were reversed. In October 2011 the FERC issued an “Order Establishing Paper Hearing” inviting parties that oppose refunds to file briefs within 30 days addressing the LPSC’s argument that FERC precedent supports refunds under the circumstances present in this proceeding.  Parties that favor refunds were then invited to file reply briefs within 21 days of the date that the initial briefs are due.  Briefs were submitted and the matter is pending.

In September 2010 the FERC had issued an order setting the refund report filed in the proceeding in November 2007 for hearing and settlement judge procedures.  In May 2011, Entergy filed a settlement agreement that resolved all issues relating to the refund report set for hearing.  In June 2011 the settlement judge certified the settlement as uncontested and the settlement agreement is currently pending before the FERC.  In July 2011, Entergy filed an amended/corrected refund report and a motion to defer action on the settlement agreement until after the FERC rules on the LPSC’s rehearing request regarding the June 2011 decision denying refunds.

Prior to the FERC’s June 2011 order on rehearing, Entergy Arkansas filed an application in November 2010 with the APSC for recovery of the refund that it paid.  The APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s application, and also denied Entergy Arkansas’s petition for rehearing.  If the FERC were to order Entergy Arkansas to pay refunds on rehearing in the interruptible load proceeding the APSC’s decision would trap FERC-approved costs at Entergy Arkansas with no regulatory-approved mechanism to recover them.  In August 2011, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas asking for a declaratory judgment that the rejection of Entergy Arkansas’s application by the APSC is preempted by the Federal Power Act.  The APSC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  In April 2012 the United States district court dismissed Entergy Arkansas’s complaint without prejudice stating that Entergy Arkansas’s claim is not ripe for adjudication and that Entergy Arkansas did not have standing to bring suit at this time.

In March 2013 the FERC issued an order denying the LPSC’s request for rehearing of the FERC’s June 2011 order wherein the FERC concluded it would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in the interruptible load proceeding. Based on its review of the LPSC’s request for rehearing and the briefs filed as part of the paper hearing established in October 2011, the FERC affirmed its earlier ruling and declined to order refunds under the circumstances of the case. 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 the proceeding. Oral argument was held on the appeal in the D.C. Circuit in September 2014. 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. The matter is pending.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

In June 2009, the LPSC filed a complaint requesting that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocate the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibits sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies.   The LPSC’s complaint challenges sales made beginning in 2002 and requests refunds.  In July 2009 the Utility operating companies filed a response to the complaint requesting that the FERC dismiss the complaint on the merits without hearing because the LPSC has failed to meet its burden of showing any violation of the System Agreement and failed to produce any evidence of imprudent action by the Entergy System.  In their response, the Utility operating companies explained that the System Agreement clearly contemplates that the Utility operating companies may make sales to third parties for their own account, subject to the requirement that those sales be included in the load (or load shape) for the applicable Utility operating company.  The response further explained that the FERC already had determined that Entergy Arkansas’s short-term wholesale sales did not trigger the “right-of-first-refusal” provision of the System Agreement.  While the D.C. Circuit recently determined that the “right-of-first-refusal” issue was not properly before the FERC at the time of its earlier decision on the issue, the LPSC raised no additional claims or facts that would warrant the FERC reaching a different conclusion.

The LPSC filed direct testimony in the proceeding alleging, among other things, (1) that Entergy violated the System Agreement by permitting Entergy Arkansas to make non-requirements sales to non-affiliated third parties rather than making such energy available to the other Utility operating companies’ customers; and (2) that over the period 2000 - 2009, these non-requirements sales caused harm to the Utility operating companies’ customers and these customers should be compensated for this harm by Entergy.  In subsequent testimony, the LPSC modified its original damages claim in favor of quantifying damages by re-running intra-system bills.  The Utility operating companies believe the LPSC’s allegations are without merit.  A hearing in the matter was held in August 2010.

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

The FERC issued a decision in June 2012 and held that, while the System Agreement is ambiguous, it does provide authority for individual Utility operating companies to make opportunity sales for their own account and Entergy Arkansas made and priced these sales in good faith.  The FERC found, however, that the System Agreement does not provide authority for an individual Utility operating company to allocate the energy associated with such opportunity sales as part of its load, but provides a different allocation authority.  The FERC further found that the after-the-fact accounting methodology used to allocate the energy used to supply the sales was inconsistent with the System Agreement.  Quantifying the effect of the FERC’s decision will require re-running intra-system bills for a ten-year period, and the FERC in its decision established further hearing procedures to determine the calculation of the effects.  In July 2012, Entergy and the LPSC filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s June 2012 decision, which are pending with the FERC.

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

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

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy Arkansas

Entergy Arkansas December 2012 Winter Storm

In December 2012 a severe winter storm consisting of ice, snow, and high winds caused significant damage to Entergy Arkansas’s distribution lines, equipment, poles, and other facilities.  Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Arkansas’s electrical facilities in areas damaged from the winter storm were $63 million, including costs recorded as regulatory assets of approximately $22 million.  In the Entergy Arkansas 2013 rate case, the APSC approved inclusion of the construction spending in rate base and approved an increase in the normal storm cost accrual.

Entergy Louisiana

Hurricane Isaac

In August 2012, Hurricane Isaac caused extensive damage to portions of Entergy’s service area in Louisiana, and to a lesser extent in Mississippi and Arkansas.  The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages.  In January 2013, Entergy Louisiana drew $252 million, from its funded storm reserve escrow accounts.  In April 2013, Entergy Louisiana filed a joint application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs.  Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested that the LPSC determine the amount of such costs that were prudently incurred and are, thus, eligible for recovery from customers.  Including carrying costs and additional storm escrow funds for prior storms, Entergy Louisiana requested an LPSC determination that $321.5 million in system restoration costs were prudently incurred. In May 2013, Entergy Louisiana, and the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation (LURC), an instrumentality of the State of Louisiana, filed with the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant financing orders authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Act 55 of the Louisiana Regular Session of 2007 (Louisiana Act 55). The LPSC Staff filed direct testimony in September 2013 concluding that Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs incurred by Entergy Louisiana were reasonable and prudent, subject to proposed minor adjustments which totaled approximately 1% of the company’s costs. Following an evidentiary hearing and recommendations by the ALJ, the LPSC voted in June 2014 to approve a series of orders which (i) quantify the amount of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs prudently incurred ($290.8 million for Entergy Louisiana); (ii) determine the level of storm reserves to be re-established ($290 million for Entergy Louisiana); (iii) authorize Entergy Louisiana to utilize Louisiana Act 55 financing for Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs; and (iv) grant other requested relief associated with storm reserves and Act 55 financing of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs.  Entergy Louisiana committed to pass on to customers a minimum of $30.8 million of customer benefits through annual customer credits of approximately $6.2 million for five years. Approvals for the Act 55 financings were obtained from the LURC and the Louisiana State Bond Commission.

In July 2014, Entergy Louisiana issued two series totaling $300 million of 3.78% Series first mortgage bonds due April 2025. Entergy Louisiana used the proceeds to re-establish and replenish its storm damage escrow reserves and for general corporate purposes.

In August 2014 the Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority (LCDA) issued $314.85 million in bonds under Louisiana Act 55.  From the $309 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LCDA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $16 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $293 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  Entergy Louisiana used the $293 million received from the LURC to acquire 2,935,152.69 Class C preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy, that carry a 7.5% annual distribution rate. Distributions are payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2014, and the membership interests have a liquidation price of $100 per unit. The preferred membership interests are callable at the option of Entergy Holdings Company LLC after ten years under the terms of the LLC agreement. The terms of the membership interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Holdings Company LLC is subject, including the requirement to maintain a net worth of at least $1.75 billion.

Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LCDA and there is no recourse against Entergy or Entergy Louisiana in the event of a bond default.  To service the bonds, Entergy Louisiana collect a system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC, and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee.  Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as the billing and collection agent for the state.

Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike

In September 2008, Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike caused catastrophic damage to Entergy’s service territory.  Entergy Louisiana filed its Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike storm cost recovery case with the LPSC in May 2009.  In September 2009, Entergy Louisiana and the LURC filed with the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant financing orders authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55. Entergy Louisiana’s Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita storm costs were financed primarily by Louisiana Act 55 financing, as discussed below.  Entergy Louisiana also filed an application requesting LPSC approval for ancillary issues including the mechanism to flow charges and Louisiana Act 55 financing savings to customers via a Storm Cost Offset rider.

In December 2009, Entergy Louisiana entered into a stipulation agreement with the LPSC Staff that provides for total recoverable costs of approximately $628 million, including carrying costs.  Under this stipulation, Entergy Louisiana agrees not to recover $11.6 million of its storm restoration spending.  The stipulation also permits replenishing Entergy Louisiana’s storm reserve in the amount of $290 million when the Act 55 financings are accomplished.  In March and April 2010, Entergy Louisiana and other parties to the proceeding filed with the LPSC an uncontested stipulated settlement that includes these terms and also includes Entergy Louisiana’s proposal under the Act 55 financings, which includes a commitment to pass on to customers a minimum of $43.3 million of customer benefits through a prospective annual rate reduction of $8.7 million for five years.  A stipulation hearing was held before the ALJ on April 13, 2010.  On April 21, 2010, the LPSC approved the settlement and subsequently issued financing orders and a ratemaking order intended to facilitate the implementation of the Act 55 financings.  In June 2010 the Louisiana State Bond Commission approved the Act 55 financing.

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

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

Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita

In August and September 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused catastrophic damage to large portions of the Utility’s service territories in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, including the effect of extensive flooding that resulted from levee breaks in and around the greater New Orleans area.  The storms and flooding resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to electric distribution, transmission, and generation and gas infrastructure, and the loss of sales and customers due to mandatory evacuations and the destruction of homes and businesses.

In March 2008, Entergy Louisiana and the LURC filed at the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant a financing order authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55.  The Louisiana Act 55 financing is expected to produce additional customer benefits as compared to traditional securitization.  Entergy Louisiana also filed an application requesting LPSC approval for ancillary issues including the mechanism to flow charges and savings to customers via a Storm Cost Offset rider.  On April 8, 2008, the Louisiana Public Facilities Authority (LPFA), which is the issuer of the bonds pursuant to the Act 55 financing, approved requests for the Act 55 financing.  On April 10, 2008, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC Staff filed with the LPSC an uncontested stipulated settlement that includes Entergy Louisiana’s proposal under the Act 55 financing, which includes a commitment to pass on to customers a minimum of $40 million of customer benefits through a prospective annual rate reduction of $8 million for five years.  On April 16, 2008, the LPSC approved the settlement and issued two financing orders and one ratemaking order intended to facilitate implementation of the Act 55 financing.  In May 2008 the Louisiana State Bond Commission granted final approval of the Act 55 financing.

In July 2008, the LPFA issued $687.7 million in bonds under the aforementioned Act 55.  From the $679 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LPFA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $152 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $527 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Louisiana invested $545 million, including $17.8 million that was withdrawn from the restricted escrow account as approved by the April 16, 2008 LPSC orders, in exchange for 5,449,861.85 Class A preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy, that carry a 10% annual distribution rate.  In August 2008, the LPFA issued $278.4 million in bonds under the aforementioned Act 55.  From the $274.7 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LPFA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $87 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $187.7 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Louisiana invested $189.4 million, including $1.7 million that was withdrawn from the restricted escrow account as approved by the April 16, 2008 LPSC orders, in exchange for 1,893,918.39 Class A preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC that carry a 10% annual distribution rate.  Distributions are payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2008 and have a liquidation price of $100 per unit.  The preferred membership interests are callable at the option of Entergy Holdings Company LLC after ten years under the terms of the LLC agreement.  The terms of the membership interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Holdings Company LLC is subject, including the requirement to maintain a net worth of at least $1 billion.  In February 2012, Entergy Louisiana sold 500,000 of its Class A preferred membership units in Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a wholly-owned Entergy subsidiary, to a third party in exchange for $51 million plus accrued but unpaid distributions on the units.  The 500,000 preferred membership units are mandatorily redeemable in January 2112.

Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LPFA, and there is no recourse against Entergy or Entergy Louisiana in the event of a bond default.  To service the bonds, Entergy Louisiana collect a system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC, and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee.  Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as the billing and collection agent for the state.

Entergy Mississippi

On July 1, 2013, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation, wherein both parties agreed that approximately $32 million in storm restoration costs incurred in 2011 and 2012 were prudently incurred and chargeable to the storm damage provision, while approximately $700,000 in prudently incurred costs were more properly recoverable through the formula rate plan. Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff also agreed that the storm damage accrual should be increased from $750,000 per month to $1.75 million per month. In September 2013 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with the increase in the storm damage accrual effective with October 2013 bills. In February 2015, Entergy Mississippi provided notice to the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff that the storm damage accrual would be set to zero effective with the March 2015 billing cycle as a result of Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage accrual balance exceeding $15 million as of January 31, 2015, but will return to its current level when the storm damage accrual balance becomes less than $10 million.

Entergy New Orleans

In October 2006 the City Council approved a rate filing settlement agreement that, among other things, authorized a $75 million storm reserve for damage from future storms, which will be created over a ten-year period through a storm reserve rider that began in March 2007.  These storm reserve funds are held in a restricted escrow account until needed in response to a storm.  

In August 2012, Hurricane Isaac caused extensive damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy New Orleans’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Isaac were $47.3 million. Entergy New Orleans withdrew $17.4 million from the storm reserve escrow account to partially offset these costs. In February 2014, Entergy New Orleans made a filing with the City Council seeking certification of the Hurricane Isaac costs. In January 2015 the City Council issued a resolution approving the terms of a joint agreement in principle filed by Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Louisiana, and the City Council Advisors determining, among other things, that Entergy New Orleans’s prudently-incurred storm recovery costs were $49.3 million, of which $31.7 million, net of reimbursements from the storm reserve escrow account, remains recoverable from Entergy New Orleans’s electric customers. The resolution also directs Entergy New Orleans to file an application to securitize the unrecovered Council-approved storm recovery costs of $31.7 million pursuant to the Louisiana Electric Utility Storm Recovery Securitization Act (Louisiana Act 64). In addition, the resolution found that it is reasonable for Entergy New Orleans to include in the principal amount of its potential securitization the costs to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve in an amount that achieves the Council-approved funding level of $75 million. In January 2015, in compliance with that directive, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the financing of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. 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. In May 2015 the parties entered into an agreement in principle and the City Council issued a financing order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to issue storm recovery bonds in the aggregate amount of $98.7 million, including $31.8 million for recovery of Entergy New Orleans’s Hurricane Isaac storm recovery costs, including carrying costs, $63.9 million to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve, and approximately $3 million for estimated up-front financing costs associated with the securitization. See Note 5 to the financial statements for discussion of the issuance of the securitization bonds in July 2015.

New Nuclear Generation Development Costs

Entergy Louisiana

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana were developing a project option for new nuclear generation at River Bend.  In March 2010, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC seeking approval to continue the limited development activities necessary to preserve an option to construct a new unit at River Bend.  At its June 2012 meeting the LPSC voted to uphold an ALJ recommendation that the request of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana be declined on the basis that the LPSC’s rule on new nuclear development does not apply to activities to preserve an option to develop and on the further grounds that the companies improperly engaged in advanced preparation activities prior to certification.  The LPSC directed that Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana be permitted to seek recovery of these costs in their upcoming rate case filings that were subsequently filed in February 2013. In the resolution of the rate case proceeding the LPSC provided for an eight-year amortization of costs incurred in connection with the potential development of new nuclear generation at River Bend, without carrying costs, beginning in December 2014, provided, however, that amortization of these costs shall not result in a future rate increase. As of December 31, 2015, Entergy Louisiana has a regulatory asset of $50.4 million on its balance sheet related to these new nuclear generation development costs.

Entergy Mississippi

Pursuant to the Mississippi Baseload Act and the Mississippi Public Utilities Act, Entergy Mississippi had been developing and preserving a project option for new nuclear generation at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station.  In October 2010, Entergy Mississippi filed an application with the MPSC requesting that the MPSC determine that it was in the public interest to preserve the option to construct new nuclear generation at Grand Gulf and that the MPSC approve the deferral of Entergy Mississippi’s costs incurred to date and in the future related to this project, including the accrual of AFUDC or similar carrying charges.  In October 2011, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed with the MPSC a joint stipulation that the MPSC approved in November 2011.  The stipulation stated that there should be a deferral of the $57 million of costs incurred through September 2011 in connection with planning, evaluation, monitoring, and other and related generation resource development activities for new nuclear generation at Grand Gulf.  

In October 2014, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into and filed joint stipulations in Entergy Mississippi’s general rate case proceeding, which are discussed above. In consideration of the comprehensive terms for settlement in that rate case proceeding, the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff and Entergy Mississippi agreed that Entergy Mississippi would request consolidation of the new nuclear generation development costs proceeding with the rate case proceeding for hearing purposes and will not further pursue, except as noted below, recovery of the costs deferred by MPSC order in the new nuclear generation development docket. The stipulations state, however, that, if Entergy Mississippi decides to move forward with nuclear development in Mississippi, it can at that time re-present for consideration by the MPSC only those costs directly associated with the existing early site permit (ESP), to the extent that the costs are verifiable and prudent and the ESP is still valid and relevant to any such option pursued. After considering the progress of the new nuclear generation costs proceeding in light of the joint stipulations, Entergy Mississippi recorded in 2014 a $56.2 million pre-tax charge to recognize that the regulatory asset associated with new nuclear generation development is no longer probable of recovery. In December 2014 the MPSC issued an order accepting in their entirety the October 2014 stipulations, including the findings and terms of the stipulations regarding new nuclear generation development costs.

Texas Power Price Lawsuit

In August 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the district court of Chambers County, Texas by Texas residents on behalf of a purported class of the Texas retail customers of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. who were billed and paid for electric power from January 1, 1994 to the present.  The named defendants include Entergy Corporation, Entergy Services, Entergy Power, Entergy Power Marketing Corp., and Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Gulf States, Inc. was not a named defendant, but was alleged to be a co-conspirator.  The court granted the request of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. to intervene in the lawsuit to protect its interests.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a “price gouging accounting scheme” to sell to plaintiffs and similarly situated utility customers higher priced power generated by the defendants while rejecting less expensive power offered from off-system suppliers.  In particular, plaintiffs allege that the defendants manipulated and continue to manipulate the dispatch of generation so that power is purchased from affiliated expensive resources instead of buying cheaper off-system power.

Plaintiffs stated in their pleadings that customers in Texas were charged at least $57 million above prevailing market prices for power.  Plaintiffs seek actual, consequential and exemplary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees, and disgorgement of profits.  The plaintiffs’ experts have tendered a report calculating damages in a large range, from $153 million to $972 million in present value, under various scenarios as of the date of the report.  The Entergy defendants have tendered expert reports challenging the assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions of the plaintiffs’ expert reports.

In March 2012 the state district court found that the case met the requirements to be maintained as a class action under Texas law.  In April 2012 the court entered an order certifying the class.  The defendants appealed the order to the Texas Court of Appeals – First District and oral argument was held in May 2013. In November 2014 the Texas Court of Appeals - First District reversed the state district court’s class certification order and dismissed the case holding that the state district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to address the issues. Plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing and a motion for rehearing en banc. 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. In July 2015 the Court of Appeals issued a new opinion again finding that the plaintiffs’ claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC and, therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The Court of Appeals ordered that the state district court dismiss all claims against the Entergy defendants. In September 2015 plaintiffs filed a petition for review at the Supreme Court of Texas. At the request of the Court, the Entergy defendants filed a response in December 2015. In January 2016 the Supreme Court of Texas issued an order requiring the parties to file briefs on the merits.

Entergy New Orleans [Member]

Rate And Regulatory Matters

RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities

Regulatory assets represent probable future revenues associated with costs that Entergy expects to recover from customers through the regulatory ratemaking process under which the Utility business operates. Regulatory liabilities represent probable future reductions in revenues associated with amounts that Entergy expects to benefit customers through the regulatory ratemaking process under which the Utility business operates. In addition to the regulatory assets and liabilities that are specifically disclosed on the face of the balance sheets, the tables below provide detail of “Other regulatory assets” and “Other regulatory liabilities” that are included on Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and 2014:

Other Regulatory Assets

Entergy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$2,574.9		$2,798.8
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 – Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators) (Note 5 - Entergy Arkansas Securitization Bonds)	717.8		736.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	589.1		513.8
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	273.3		245.1
Little Gypsy costs – recovered through securitization (Note 5 – Entergy Louisiana Securitization Bonds - Little Gypsy)	121.1		139.2
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	66.7		76.2
Transition to competition costs - recovered over a 15-year period through February 2021	57.4		66.2
New nuclear generation development costs (Note 2 - New Nuclear Generation Development Costs) (c)	51.1		58.4
MISO implementation costs - recovery through retail rate riders (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	49.4		69.6
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined by retail regulators	32.2		54.7
Human capital management costs - recovery through retail rate mechanisms (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	28.3		42.3
Other	143.5		168.1
Entergy Total		$4,704.8		$4,968.6

Entergy Arkansas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$766.5		$838.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	288.0		254.8
Storm damage costs - recovered either through securitization or retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators) (Note 5 - Entergy Arkansas Securitization Bonds)	97.2		125.6
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	85.7		59.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	23.0		26.2
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	18.1		23.3
MISO implementation costs - recovery through retail rates through 2018 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (c)	17.5		25.1
Human capital management costs - recovery through retail rates through June 2017 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (c)	10.4		17.3
Lake Catherine 4 reliability and sustainability cost deferral - recovery expected through retail rates (c)	10.4		2.4
Incremental ice storm costs - recovered through 2032	8.4		9.0
Other	8.6		10.4
Entergy Arkansas Total		$1,333.8		$1,391.3

Entergy Louisiana

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$718.7		$774.0
Asset Retirement Obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	180.8		167.5
Little Gypsy costs – recovered through securitization (Note 5 – Entergy Louisiana Securitization Bonds - Little Gypsy)	119.2		139.2
New nuclear generation development costs - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2014 through November 2022 (Note 2 - New Nuclear Generation Development Costs) (c)	50.4		58.4
MISO implementation costs - recovery through the MISO cost recovery mechanism beginning December 2014 through November 2017 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	26.6		37.1
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	19.2		21.1
Human capital management costs - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2014 through November 2017 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	17.6		25.0
River Bend AFUDC - recovered through August 2025 (Note 1 – River Bend AFUDC)	16.7		18.6
Business combination external costs deferral - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2015 through November 2025 (c)	16.1		—
MISO integration deferral - recovery through the MISO cost recovery mechanism beginning December 2014 through November 2017	14.5		23.3
Gas hedging costs - recovered through fuel rates (Note 16 - Derivatives)	7.0		15.8
Spindletop gas storage facility - recovery period through August 2016 (a) (Note 2 - System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings)	1.1		26.2
Other	30.0		34.4
Entergy Louisiana Total		$1,217.9		$1,340.6

Entergy Mississippi

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$216.1		$224.3
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	77.5		76.3
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	7.6		27.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	7.1		8.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	6.7		6.3
Baxter Wilson outage costs - recovered through retail rates over two years beginning February 2015 (Note 8 - Baxter Wilson Plant Event)	3.2		6.0
MISO implementation costs - recovery through retail rate riders (Note 2 – Retail Rate Proceedings)	2.7		4.0
Other	7.8		12.6
Entergy Mississippi Total		$328.7		$364.7

Entergy New Orleans

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through retail rates and securitization (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators)		$104.0		$18.5
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)	103.7		115.8
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	29.4		35.2
Michoud plant maintenance – recovered over a 7-year period through September 2018	5.2		7.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	4.0		3.8
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined monthly or annually	3.1		0.4
Rate case costs - recovered through retail rates (c)	3.2		3.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	1.6		1.8
Other	11.1		9.2
Entergy New Orleans Total		$265.3		$194.9

Entergy Texas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators)		$516.2		$591.7
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)	193.6		217.0
Transition to competition costs - recovered over a 15-year period through February 2021	57.4		66.2
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	25.8		18.9
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	9.4		10.5
Rate case costs -recovered through retail rates (c)	3.8		8.4
Other	6.7		9.4
Entergy Texas Total		$812.9		$922.1

System Energy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans and Other Postretirement Benefits) (b)		$178.0		$191.0
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (b)	108.6		80.4
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	54.8		55.7
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	6.4		8.5
System Energy Total		$347.8		$335.6

(a) The jurisdictional split order assigned the regulatory asset to Entergy Texas.  The regulatory asset, however, is being recovered and amortized at Entergy Louisiana.  As a result, a billing occurs monthly over the same term as the recovery and receipts will be submitted to Entergy Texas.  Entergy Texas has recorded a receivable from Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana has recorded a corresponding payable.

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

(c) Does not earn a return on investment.

Other Regulatory Liabilities

Entergy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)		$611.7		$656.7
Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8)	222.6		242.8
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation (Note 2)	156.0		156.0
Business combination guaranteed customer benefits - returned to customers through retail rates and fuel rates beginning December 2015 through November 2024 (Note 2 - Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination)	105.2		—
Removal costs - returned to customers through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)	68.3		82.7
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback - (Note 10 - Sale and Leaseback Transactions)	67.9		79.5
Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - amortized and credited through the UPSA	46.4		53.6
Entergy Arkansas’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and FERC	44.4		44.4
Waterford 3 replacement steam generator provision (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	31.7		—
Asset retirement obligation - will be returned to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)	28.2		27.7
Other	32.5		40.2
Entergy Total		$1,414.9		$1,383.6

Entergy Arkansas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)		$236.1		$254.0
Other	6.8		—
Entergy Arkansas Total		$242.9		$254.0

Entergy Louisiana

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8)		$222.6		$242.8
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)	196.9		209.1
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation (Note 2)	156.0		156.0
Business combination guaranteed customer benefits - returned to customers through retail rates and fuel rates beginning December 2015 through November 2024 (Note 2 - Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination)	105.2		—
Removal costs - returned to customers through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)	68.3		82.6
Waterford 3 replacement steam generator provision (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	31.7		—
Asset Retirement Obligation - will be returned to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)	28.2		27.7
Other	9.7		4.2
Entergy Louisiana Total		$818.6		$722.4

Entergy Texas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Transition to competition costs - returned to customers through rate riders when rates are redetermined periodically		$6.4		$5.1
Entergy Texas Total		$6.4		$5.1

System Energy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)		$178.7		$193.6
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback - (Note 10 - Sale and Leaseback Transactions)	67.9		79.5
Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - amortized and credited through the UPSA	46.4		53.6
Entergy Arkansas’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and FERC	44.4		44.4
System Energy Total		$337.4		$371.1

(a) Offset by related asset.

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas are allowed to recover fuel and purchased power costs through fuel mechanisms included in electric and gas rates that are recorded as fuel cost recovery revenues.  The difference between revenues collected and the current fuel and purchased power costs is generally recorded as “Deferred fuel costs” on the Utility operating companies’ financial statements.  The table below shows the amount of deferred fuel costs as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 that Entergy expects to recover (or return to customers) through fuel mechanisms, subject to subsequent regulatory review.

	2015			2014
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas (a)		$57.8			$209.2
Entergy Louisiana (b)		$102.9			$107.1
Entergy Mississippi		($107.8	)		($2.2	)
Entergy New Orleans (b)		($24.9	)		($25.1	)
Entergy Texas		($25.1	)		$11.9

(a) 2015 and 2014 include respectively $66.7 million and $65.9 million for Entergy Arkansas of fuel, purchased power, and capacity costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

(b) 2015 and 2014 include $168.1 million for Entergy Louisiana and $4.1 million for Entergy New Orleans of fuel, purchased power, and capacity costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

Entergy Arkansas

Production Cost Allocation Rider

The APSC approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas as a result of the System Agreement proceedings, which are discussed in the “System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings” section below.  These costs cause an increase in Entergy Arkansas’s deferred fuel cost balance because Entergy Arkansas pays the costs over seven months but collects them from customers over twelve months.

In May 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider to recover the $3 million unrecovered retail balance as of December 31, 2013 and the $67.8 million System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment made in May 2014 as a result of the compliance filing pursuant to the FERC’s February 2014 orders related to the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. In June 2014 the APSC suspended the annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider and scheduled a hearing in September 2014. Upon a joint motion of the parties, the APSC canceled the September 2014 hearing and in January 2015 the APSC issued an order approving Entergy Arkansas’s request for recovery of the $3 million under-recovered amount based on the true-up of the production cost allocation rider and the $67.8 million May 2014 System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment subject to refund with interest, with recovery of these payments concluding with the last billing cycle in December 2015. The APSC also found that Entergy Arkansas is entitled to carrying charges pursuant to the current terms of the production cost allocation rider. Entergy Arkansas made its compliance filing pursuant to the order in January 2015 and the APSC issued its approval order, also in January 2015. The redetermined rate went into effect the first billing cycle of February 2015.

In May 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider, which included a $38 million payment made by Entergy Arkansas as a result of the FERC’s February 2014 order related to the comprehensive bandwidth recalculation for calendar year 2006, 2007, and 2008 production costs. The redetermined rate for the 2015 production cost allocation rider update was added to the redetermined rate from the 2014 production cost allocation rider update and the combined rate was effective with the first billing cycle of July 2015. This combined rate was effective through December 2015. The collection of the remainder of the redetermined rate for the 2015 production cost allocation rider update will continue through June 2016.

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

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

In October 2005 the APSC initiated an investigation into Entergy Arkansas’s interim energy cost recovery rate.  The investigation focused on Entergy Arkansas’s 1) gas contracting, portfolio, and hedging practices; 2) wholesale purchases during the period; 3) management of the coal inventory at its coal generation plants; and 4) response to the contractual failure of the railroads to provide coal deliveries.  In March 2006 the APSC extended its investigation to cover the costs included in Entergy Arkansas’s March 2006 annual energy cost rate filing, and a hearing was held in the APSC investigation in October 2006.

In January 2007 the APSC issued an order in its review of the energy cost rate.  The APSC found that Entergy Arkansas failed to maintain an adequate coal inventory level going into the summer of 2005 and that Entergy Arkansas should be responsible for any incremental energy costs that resulted from two outages caused by employee and contractor error.  The coal plant generation curtailments were caused by railroad delivery problems and Entergy Arkansas resolved litigation with the railroad regarding the delivery problems.  The APSC staff was directed to perform an analysis with Entergy Arkansas’s assistance to determine the additional fuel and purchased energy costs associated with these findings and file the analysis within sixty days of the order.  After a final determination of the costs is made by the APSC, Entergy Arkansas will be directed to refund that amount with interest to its customers as a credit on the energy cost recovery rider.  Entergy Arkansas requested rehearing of the order.

In February 2010 the APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s request for rehearing, and held a hearing in September 2010 to determine the amount of damages, if any, that should be assessed against Entergy Arkansas.  A decision is pending.  Entergy Arkansas expects the amount of damages, if any, to have an immaterial effect on its results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

The APSC also established a separate docket to consider the resolved railroad litigation, and in February 2010 it established a procedural schedule that concluded with testimony through September 2010.  The testimony was filed, and the APSC will decide the case based on the record in the proceeding.

In January 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion with the APSC relating to its redetermination of its energy cost rate that was filed in March 2014. In that motion, Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to exclude $65.9 million of deferred fuel and purchased energy costs incurred in 2013 from the redetermination of its 2014 energy cost rate. The $65.9 million is an estimate of the incremental fuel and replacement energy costs that Entergy Arkansas incurred as a result of the ANO stator incident. Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to retain that amount in its deferred fuel balance, with recovery to be reviewed in a later period after more information is available regarding various claims associated with the ANO stator incident. The APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’s request in February 2014. See the “ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews” section in Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of the ANO stator incident.

Entergy Louisiana

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

In April 2010 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009.  The LPSC staff issued its audit report in January 2013.  The LPSC staff recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $1.9 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $1 million from Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates.  The recommended refund was made by Entergy Louisiana in May 2013 in the form of a credit to customers through its fuel adjustment clause filing. Two parties intervened in the proceeding. A procedural schedule was established for the identification of issues by the intervenors and for Entergy Louisiana to submit comments regarding the LPSC Staff report and any issues raised by intervenors. One intervenor is seeking further proceedings regarding certain issues it raised in its comments on the LPSC Staff report. Entergy Louisiana has filed responses to both the LPSC Staff report and the issues raised by the intervenor. As required by the procedural schedule, a joint status report was submitted in October 2013 by the parties. A status conference was held in December 2013. Discovery has ceased and the parties are awaiting issuance of the audit report of the LPSC staff, but a procedural schedule has not been established.

In December 2011 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate another proceeding to audit the fuel adjustment clause filings of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and its affiliates.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period 2005 through 2009.  Discovery has ceased and the parties are awaiting issuance of the audit report of the LPSC staff, but a procedural schedule has not been established.

In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015.

In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015.

Entergy Mississippi

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

Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel balance of $60.4 million as of March 31, 2014. In May 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed for an interim adjustment under its energy cost recovery rider. The interim adjustment proposed a net energy cost factor designed to collect over a six-month period the under-recovered deferred fuel balance as of March 31, 2014 and also reflected a natural gas price of $4.50 per MMBtu. In May 2014, Entergy Mississippi and the Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation in which Entergy Mississippi agreed to a revised net energy cost factor that reflected the proposed interim adjustment with a reduction in costs recovered through the energy cost recovery rider associated with the suspension of the DOE nuclear waste storage fee. In June 2014 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation and allowed Entergy Mississippi’s interim adjustment. In November 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider.  Due to lower gas prices and a lower deferred fuel balance, the redetermined annual factor was a decrease from the revised interim net energy cost factor.  In January 2015 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective January 30, 2015.

Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel over-recovery balance of $58.3 million as of May 31, 2015, along with an under-recovery balance of $12.3 million under the power management rider. Pursuant to those tariffs, in July 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed for interim adjustments under both the energy cost recovery rider and the power management rider to flow through to customers the approximately $46 million net over-recovery over a six-month period. In August 2015, the MPSC approved the interim adjustments effective with September 2015 bills. In November 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included a projected over-recovery balance of $48 million projected through January 31, 2016. In January 2016 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective February 1, 2016. The MPSC further ordered, however, that due to the significant change in natural gas price forecasts since Entergy Mississippi’s filing in November 2015 Entergy Mississippi shall file a revised fuel factor with the MPSC no later than February 1, 2016. In February 2016, Entergy Mississippi submitted a revised fuel factor reflecting a natural gas price of $2.45 per MMBtu.

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 Attorney General appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the denial of the motion to remand. In July 2015 the Fifth Circuit issued an order denying the appeal, and the Attorney General subsequently filed a petition for rehearing of the request for interlocutory appeal, which was also denied. The case remains pending in federal district court, awaiting a ruling on the Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. In December 2015 the District Court ordered that the parties submit to the court undisputed and disputed facts that are material to the Entergy defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, as well as supplemental briefs regarding the same. Those filings were made in January 2016.

Entergy New Orleans

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

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

Entergy Texas

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

In October 2012, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to refund approximately $78 million, including interest, of fuel cost recovery over-collections through September 2012.  Entergy Texas requested that the refund be implemented over a six-month period effective with the January 2013 billing month.  Entergy Texas and the parties to the proceeding reached an agreement that Entergy Texas would refund $84 million, including interest and additional over-recoveries through October 2012, to most customers over a three-month period beginning January 2013.  The PUCT approved the stipulation in January 2013. Entergy Texas completed this refund to customers in March 2013.

In July 2012, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application to credit its customers approximately $37.5 million, including interest, resulting from the FERC’s October 2011 order in the System Agreement rough production cost equalization proceeding which is discussed below in “System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings.”  In September 2012 the parties submitted a stipulation resolving the proceeding.  The stipulation provided that most Entergy Texas customers would be credited over a four-month period beginning October 2012.  The credits were initiated with the October 2012 billing month on an interim basis, and the PUCT subsequently approved the stipulation, also in October 2012.

In August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking PUCT approval to implement an interim fuel refund of approximately $24.6 million for over-collected fuel costs incurred during the months of November 2012 through April 2014. This refund resulted from (i) applying $48.6 million in bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received in May 2014 related to the June - December 2005 period to Entergy Texas’s $8.7 million under-recovered fuel balance as of April 30, 2014 and (ii) netting that fuel balance against the $15.3 million bandwidth remedy paymentthat Entergy Texas made related to calendar year 2013 production costs. Also in August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed motion for interim rates to implement these refunds for most customers over a two-month period commencing with September 2014. The PUCT issued its order approving the interim relief in August 2014 and Entergy Texas completed the refunds in October 2014.Parties intervened in this matter, and all parties agreed that the proceeding should be bifurcated such that the proposed interim refund would become final in a separate proceeding, which refund was approved by the PUCT in March 2015.   In July 2015 certain parties filed briefs in the open proceeding asserting that Entergy Texas should refund to retail customers an additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs.  In October 2015 an ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments be refunded to retail customers. In January 2016 the PUCT issued its order affirming the ALJ’s recommendation, and Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the PUCT’s decision, which the PUCT denied.

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

Retail Rate Proceedings

Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas)

Retail Rates

2013 Base Rate Filing

In March 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing assumed Entergy Arkansas’s transition to MISO in December 2013, and requested a rate increase of $174 million, including $49 million of revenue being transferred from collection in riders to base rates. The filing also proposed a new transmission rider and a capacity cost recovery rider. The filing requested a 10.4% return on common equity. In September 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed testimony reflecting an updated rate increase request of $145 million, with no change to its requested return on common equity of 10.4%. Hearings in the proceeding began in October 2013, and in December 2013 the APSC issued an order. The order authorized a base rate increase of $81 million and included an authorized return on common equity of 9.3%. The order allowed Entergy Arkansas to amortize its human capital management costs over a three-and-a-half year period, but also ordered Entergy Arkansas to file a detailed report of the Arkansas-specific costs, savings and final payroll changes upon conclusion of the human capital management strategic imperative. The detailed report was subsequently filed in February 2015. The substance of the report was addressed in Entergy Arkansas’s 2015 base rate filing. New rates under the January 2014 order were implemented in the first billing cycle of March 2014 and were effective as of January 2014. Additionally, in January 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition for rehearing or clarification of several aspects of the APSC’s order, including the 9.3% authorized return on common equity. In February 2014 the APSC granted Entergy Arkansas’s petition for the purpose of considering the additional evidence identified by Entergy Arkansas. In August 2014 the APSC issued an order amending certain aspects of the original order, including providing for a 9.5% authorized return on common equity. Pursuant to the August 2014 order, revised rates were effective for all bills rendered after December 31, 2013 and were implemented in the first billing cycle of October 2014.

2015 Base Rate Filing

In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notified the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a forward test year formula rate plan pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requested a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requested a 10.2% return on common equity. In May 2015 the APSC issued an order suspending the proposed rates and tariffs filed by Entergy Arkansas and establishing a procedural schedule to complete its investigation of Entergy Arkansas’s application. In September 2015, APSC staff and intervenors filed direct testimony, with the APSC staff recommending a revenue requirement of $217.9 million and a 9.65% return on common equity. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in October 2015. In December 2015, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and certain of the intervenors in the rate case filed with the APSC a joint motion for approval of a settlement of the case that proposes a retail rate increase of approximately $225 million with a net increase in revenue of approximately $133 million; an authorized return on common equity of 9.75%; and a formula rate plan tariff that provides a 50 basis point band around the 9.75% allowed return on common equity.

A hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that would reduce the retail rate increase proposed in the settlement by $5 million. The parties were directed to inform the APSC by filing no later than February 26, 2016 whether they accept the APSC’s proposed settlement agreement modification or request a full hearing on the issues. Entergy Arkansas plans to make its first formula rate plan filing in July 2016 for rates effective with the first billing cycle of January 2017.

A significant portion of the rate increase is related to Entergy Arkansas’s acquisition of Union Power Station Power Block 2 for an expected base purchase price of $237 million, subject to adjustment. The acquisition is expected to be completed promptly following the receipt of FERC approval. If the acquisition closes on or before March 24, 2016, recovery of the costs to acquire Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station will be through Entergy Arkansas’s new base rates that will commence with the first billing cycle of April 2016. If the transaction closes after that date, the parties have agreed to concurrent cost recovery through Entergy Arkansas’s capacity acquisition rider.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)

Retail Rates - Electric

2013 Rate Cases

In connection with its decision to extend the formula rate plan to the 2011 test year, the LPSC required that a base rate case be filed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, and the required filing was made in February 2013. The filing anticipated Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s integration into MISO. In the filing Entergy Gulf States Louisiana requested, among other relief:

• authorization to increase the revenue it collects from customers by approximately $24 million;

• an authorized return on common equity of 10.4%;

• authorization to increase depreciation rates embedded in the proposed revenue requirement; and,

• authorization to implement a three-year formula rate plan with a midpoint return on common equity of 10.4%, plus or minus 75 basis points (the deadband), that would provide a means for the annual re-setting of rates (commencing with calendar year 2013 as its first test year), that would include a mechanism to recover incremental transmission revenue requirement on the basis of a forward-looking test year as compared to the initial base year of 2014 with an annual true-up, that would retain the primary aspects of the prior formula rate plan, including a 60% to customers/40% to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana sharing mechanism for earnings outside the deadband, and a capacity rider mechanism that would permit recovery of incremental capacity additions approved by the LPSC.

Following a hearing before an ALJ and the ALJ’s issuance of a Report of Proceedings, in December 2013 the LPSC approved an unopposed settlement of the proceeding. Major terms of the settlement included approval of a three-year formula rate plan (effective for test years 2014-2016) modeled after the formula rate plan in effect for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana for 2011, including the following: (1) a midpoint return on equity of 9.95% plus or minus 80 basis points, with 60/40 sharing of earnings outside of the bandwidth; (2) recovery outside of the sharing mechanism for the non-fuel MISO-related costs, additional capacity revenue requirement, extraordinary items, such as the Ninemile 6 project, and certain special recovery items; (3) three-year amortization of costs to achieve savings associated with the human capital management strategic imperative, with savings to be reflected as they are realized in subsequent years; (4) eight-year amortization of costs incurred in connection with potential development of a new nuclear unit at River Bend, without carrying costs, beginning December 2014, provided, however, that amortization of these costs shall not result in a future rate increase; (5) no change in rates related to test year 2013, except with respect to recovery of the non-fuel MISO-related costs and any changes to the additional capacity revenue requirement; and (6) no increase in rates related to test year 2014, except for those items eligible for recovery outside of the earnings sharing mechanism. Existing depreciation rates will not change. Implementation of rate changes for items recoverable outside of the earnings sharing mechanism occurred in December 2014.

Pursuant to the rate case settlement approved by the LPSC in December 2013, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted a compliance filing in May 2014 reflecting the effects of the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism revenue requirement and adjustment of the additional capacity mechanism. In November 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted an additional compliance filing updating the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism for the most recent actual data. Based on this updated filing, a net increase of $5.8 million in formula rate plan revenue to be collected over nine months was implemented in December 2014. The compliance filings are subject to LPSC review in accordance with the review process set forth in Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s formula rate plan.

In November 2011 the LPSC approved a one-year extension of Entergy Louisiana’s formula rate plan.  In May 2012, Entergy Louisiana made its formula rate plan filing with the LPSC for the 2011 test year.  The filing reflected a 9.63% earned return on common equity, which is within the earnings bandwidth and resulted in no cost of service rate change under the formula rate plan.  The filing also reflected an $18.1 million rate increase for the incremental capacity rider.  In August 2012, Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised filing that reflected an earned return on common equity of 10.38%, which is still within the earnings bandwidth, resulting in no cost of service rate change.  The revised filing also indicated that an increase of $15.9 million should be reflected in the incremental capacity rider.  The rate change was implemented, subject to refund, effective for bills rendered the first billing cycle of September 2012.  Subsequently, in December 2012, Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised evaluation report that reflected two items: 1) a $17 million reduction for the first-year capacity charges for the purchase by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana from Entergy Louisiana of one-third of Acadia Unit 2 capacity and energy, and 2) an $88 million increase for the first-year retail revenue requirement associated with the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, which was in-service in December 2012.  These rate changes were implemented, subject to refund, effective with the first billing cycle of January 2013.  In April 2013, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint report resolving the 2011 test year formula rate plan and recovery related to the Grand Gulf uprate. This report was approved by the LPSC in April 2013.

In connection with its decision to extend the formula rate plan to the 2011 test year, the LPSC required that a base rate case be filed by Entergy Louisiana, and the required filing was made on February 15, 2013. The filing anticipated Entergy Louisiana’s integration into MISO. In the filing Entergy Louisiana requested, among other relief:

• authorization to increase the revenue it collects from customers by approximately $145 million (which does not take into account a revenue offset of approximately $2 million resulting from a proposed increase for those customers taking service under the Qualifying Facility Standby Service);

• an authorized return on common equity of 10.4%;

• authorization to increase depreciation rates embedded in the proposed revenue requirement; and

• authorization to implement a three-year formula rate plan with a midpoint return on common equity of 10.4%, plus or minus 75 basis points (the deadband), that would provide a means for the annual re-setting of rates (commencing with calendar year 2013 as its first test year), that would include a mechanism to recover incremental transmission revenue requirement on the basis of a forward-looking test year as compared to the initial base year of 2014 with an annual true-up, that would retain the primary aspects of the prior formula rate plan, including a 60% to customers/40% to Entergy Louisiana sharing mechanism for earnings outside the deadband, and a capacity rider mechanism that would permit recovery of incremental capacity additions approved by the LPSC.

Following a hearing before an ALJ and the ALJ’s issuance of a Report of Proceedings, in December 2013 the LPSC approved an unopposed settlement of the proceeding. The settlement provided for a $10 million rate increase effective with the first billing cycle of December 2014. Major terms of the settlement included approval of a three-year formula rate plan (effective for test years 2014-2016) modeled after the formula rate plan in effect for Entergy Louisiana for 2011, including the following: (1) a midpoint return on equity of 9.95% plus or minus 80 basis points, with 60/40 sharing of earnings outside of the bandwidth; (2) recovery outside of the sharing mechanism for the non-fuel MISO-related costs, additional capacity revenue requirement, extraordinary items, such as the Ninemile 6 project, and certain special recovery items; (3) three-year amortization of costs to achieve savings associated with the human capital management strategic imperative, with savings reflected as they are realized in subsequent years; (4) eight-year amortization of costs incurred in connection with potential development of a new nuclear unit at River Bend, without carrying costs, beginning December 2014, provided, however, that amortization of these costs shall not result in a future rate increase; (5) recovery of non-fuel MISO-related costs and any changes to the additional capacity revenue requirement related to test year 2013 effective with the first billing cycle of December 2014; and (6) a cumulative $30 million cap on cost of service increases over the three-year formula rate plan cycle, except for those items outside of the sharing mechanism. Existing depreciation rates will not change.

Pursuant to the rate case settlement approved by the LPSC in December 2013, Entergy Louisiana submitted a compliance filing in May 2014 reflecting the effects of the $10 million agreed-upon increase in formula rate plan revenue, the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism revenue requirement, and the adjustment of the additional capacity mechanism. In November 2014, Entergy Louisiana submitted an additional compliance filing updating the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism for the most recent actual data, as well as providing for a refund and prospective reduction in rates for the true-up of the estimated revenue requirement for the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project. Based on this updated filing, a net increase of $41.6 million in formula rate plan revenue to be collected over nine months was implemented in December 2014. The compliance filings are subject to LPSC review in accordance with the review process set forth in Entergy Louisiana’s formula rate plan. Additionally, the adjustments of rates made related to the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project included in the December 2014 compliance filing are subject to final true-up following completion of the LPSC’s determination regarding the prudence of the project. LPSC staff identified five issues, of which two remain. The remaining issues pertain to Entergy Louisiana’s method of collecting the agreed-upon $10 million increase and the level of recovery of investment related to the Grand Gulf uprate. No procedural schedule has been established, however, to address these remaining issues. The final issue raised by the LPSC staff pertains to the appropriate level of refunds related to the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project. That issue will be resolved in connection with the Waterford 3 prudence review proceedings discussed below.

Waterford 3 Replacement Steam Generator Project

Following the completion of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, the LPSC undertook a prudence review in connection with a filing made by Entergy Louisiana in April 2013 with regard to the following aspects of the replacement project: 1) project management; 2) cost controls; 3) success in achieving stated objectives; 4) the costs of the replacement project; and 5) the outage length and replacement power costs. In July 2014 the LPSC Staff filed testimony recommending potential project and replacement power cost disallowances of up to $71 million, citing a need for further explanation or documentation from Entergy Louisiana.  An intervenor filed testimony recommending disallowance of $141 million of incremental project costs, claiming the steam generator fabricator was imprudent.  Entergy Louisiana provided further documentation and explanation requested by the LPSC staff. An evidentiary hearing was held in December 2014. At the hearing the parties maintained the positions reflected in pre-filed testimony. Entergy Louisiana believes that the replacement steam generator costs were prudently incurred and applicable legal principles support their recovery in rates.  Nevertheless, Entergy Louisiana recorded a write-off of $16 million of Waterford 3’s plant balance in December 2014 because of the uncertainty at the time associated with the resolution of the prudence review. In December 2015 the ALJ issued a proposed recommendation, which was subsequently finalized, concluding that Entergy Louisiana prudently managed the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, including the selection, use, and oversight of contractors, and could not reasonably have anticipated the damage to the steam generators. Nevertheless, the ALJ concluded that Entergy Louisiana was liable for the conduct of its contractor and subcontractor and, therefore, recommended a disallowance of $67 million in capital costs. Additionally, the ALJ concluded that Entergy Louisiana did not sufficiently justify the incurrence of $2 million in replacement power costs during the replacement outage. Although the ALJ’s recommendation has yet to be considered by the LPSC, after considering the progress of the proceeding in light of the ALJ recommendation, Entergy Louisiana recorded in the fourth quarter 2015 approximately $77 million in charges, including a $45 million asset write-off and a $32 million regulatory charge, to reflect that a portion of the assets associated with the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project is no longer probable of recovery. Entergy Louisiana maintains that the ALJ’s recommendation contains significant factual and legal errors.

Ninemile 6

In July 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed stipulation with the LPSC that estimated a first year revenue requirement associated with Ninemile 6 and provided a mechanism to update the revenue requirement as the in-service date approached, which was subsequently approved by the LPSC. In late-December 2014, roughly contemporaneous with the unit's placement in service, a final updated estimated revenue requirement of $26.8 million for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and $51.1 million for Entergy Louisiana was filed. The December 2014 estimate forms the basis of rates implemented effective with the first billing cycle of January 2015. In July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a compliance filing including an estimate at completion, inclusive of interconnection costs and transmission upgrades, of approximately $648 million, or $76 million less than originally estimated, along with other project details and supporting evidence, to enable the LPSC to review the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s management of the project. A hearing is scheduled in March 2016.

Union Power Station

In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed its application with the LPSC for approval of the acquisition and cost recovery of two power blocks of the Union Power Station for an expected base purchase price of approximately $237 million per power block, subject to adjustments. In September 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana agreed to settlement terms with all parties for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s purchase of the two power blocks. In October 2015 the LPSC voted unanimously to approve the uncontested settlement which finds, among other things, that acquisition of Power Blocks 3 and 4 is in the public interest and, therefore, prudent. The business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana received regulatory approval and closed in October 2015 making Entergy Louisiana the named purchaser of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station.

Business Combination

In connection with the approval of the business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana, the LPSC authorized the filing of a single, joint formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. The joint evaluation report was filed in September 2015 and reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.09%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following adjustments are required under the formula rate plan, however: a decrease in the additional capacity mechanism for Entergy Louisiana of $17.8 million; an increase in the additional capacity mechanism for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana of $4.3 million; and a reduction of $5.5 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism, to collect approximately $35.7 million on a combined-company basis. Under the order approving the business combination, following completion of the prescribed review period, rates were implemented with the first billing cycle of December 2015, subject to refund. In November 2015, the LPSC staff filed objections, corrections, and comments identifying several issues for potential rate adjustments, including: preservation of previously-raised issues; the implementation of the $10 million increase in annual formula rate plan revenue over abbreviated rate-effective period; the level of adjustment to rates for the extended power uprate at System Energy, as well as asserting a general reservation of rights for further review of adjustments related to Ninemile 6 and the Waterford 3 provision for rate refund; change to gross plant, depreciation, and net plant components of rate base; regulatory debits and credits; adjustment for business combination expenses and the implementation of certain guaranteed customer credits. See “Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination” below for further discussion of the business combination.

Retail Rates - Gas

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

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

In accordance with the settlement of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2012, in August 2014 Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted for consideration a proposal for implementation of an infrastructure rider to recover expenditures associated with strategic plant investment and relocation projects mandated by local governments. After review by the LPSC staff and inclusion of certain customer safeguards required by the LPSC staff, in December 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the LPSC staff submitted a joint settlement for implementation of an accelerated gas pipe replacement program providing for the replacement of approximately 100 miles of pipe over the next ten years, as well as relocation of certain existing pipe resulting from local government-related infrastructure projects, and for a rider to recover the investment associated with these projects. The rider allows for recovery of approximately $65 million over ten years. The rider recovery will be adjusted on a quarterly basis to include actual investment incurred for the prior quarter and is subject to the following conditions, among others: a ten-year term; application of any earnings in excess of 10.45% as an offset to the revenue requirement of the infrastructure rider; adherence to a specified spending plan, within plus or minus 20% annually; annual filings comparing actual versus planned rider spending with actual spending and explanation of variances exceeding 10%; and an annual true-up. The joint settlement was approved by the LPSC in January 2015. Implementation of the infrastructure rider commenced with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of April 2015.

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 resulted 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 was implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015.

In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2015. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 10.22%, which is within the authorized bandwidth, therefore requiring no change in rates. Absent approval of an extension by the LPSC, test year 2015 is the final year under the current gas rate stabilization plan. In February 2016, however, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the terms of the gas rate stabilization plan for an additional three-year term.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Formula Rate Plan Filings

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

In June 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed its first general rate case before the MPSC in almost 12 years.  The rate filing laid out Entergy Mississippi’s plans for improving reliability, modernizing the grid, maintaining its workforce, stabilizing rates, utilizing new technologies, and attracting new industry to its service territory.  Entergy Mississippi requested a net increase in revenue of $49 million for bills rendered during calendar year 2015, including $30 million resulting from new depreciation rates to update the estimated service life of assets.  In addition, the filing proposed, among other things: 1) realigning cost recovery of the Attala and Hinds power plant acquisitions from the power management rider to base rates; 2) including certain MISO-related revenues and expenses in the power management rider; 3) power management rider changes that reflect the changes in costs and revenues that will accompany Entergy Mississippi’s withdrawal from participation in the System Agreement; and 4) a formula rate plan forward test year to allow for known changes in expenses and revenues for the rate effective period.  Entergy Mississippi proposed maintaining the current authorized return on common equity of 10.59%. 

In October 2014, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into and filed joint stipulations that addressed the majority of issues in the proceeding. The stipulations provided for:

• an approximate $16 million net increase in revenues, which reflected an agreed upon 10.07% return on common equity;

• revision of Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan by providing Entergy Mississippi with the ability to reflect known and measurable changes to historical rate base and certain expense amounts; resolving uncertainty around and obviating the need for an additional rate filing in connection with Entergy Mississippi’s withdrawal from participation in the System Agreement; updating depreciation rates; and moving costs associated with the Attala and Hinds generating plants from the power management rider to base rates;

• recovery of non-fuel MISO-related costs through a separate rider for that purpose;

• a deferral of $6 million in other operation and maintenance expenses associated with the Baxter Wilson outage and a determination that the regulatory asset should accrue carrying costs, with amortization of the regulatory asset over two years beginning in February 2015, and a provision that the capital costs will be reflected in rate base. See Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Baxter Wilson outage; and

• consolidation of the new nuclear generation development costs proceeding with the general rate case proceeding for hearing purposes and a determination that Entergy Mississippi would not further pursue, except as noted below, recovery of the costs that were approved for deferral by the MPSC in November 2011. The stipulations state, however, that, if Entergy Mississippi decides to move forward with nuclear development in Mississippi, it can at that time re-present for consideration by the MPSC only those costs directly associated with the existing early site permit (ESP), to the extent that the costs are verifiable and prudent and the ESP is still valid and relevant to any such option pursued. See “New Nuclear Generation Development Costs - Entergy Mississippi” below for further discussion of the new nuclear generation development costs proceeding and subsequent write-off in 2014 of the regulatory asset related to those costs.

In December 2014 the MPSC issued an order accepting the stipulations in their entirety and approving the revenue adjustments and rate changes effective with February 2015 bills.

Filings with the City Council

(Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans)

In March 2013, Entergy Louisiana filed a rate case for the Algiers area, which is in New Orleans and is regulated by the City Council. Entergy Louisiana requested a rate increase of $13 million over three years, including a 10.4% return on common equity and a formula rate plan mechanism identical to its LPSC request. In January 2014 the City Council Advisors filed direct testimony recommending a rate increase of $5.56 million over three years, including an 8.13% return on common equity. In June 2014 the City Council unanimously approved a settlement that includes the following:

• a $9.3 million base rate revenue increase to be phased in on a levelized basis over four years;

• recovery of an additional $853 thousand annually through a MISO recovery rider; and

• the adoption of a four-year formula rate plan requiring the filing of annual evaluation reports in May of each year, commencing May 2015, with resulting rates being implemented in October of each year. The formula rate plan includes a midpoint target authorized return on common equity of 9.95% with a +/- 40 basis point bandwidth.

The rate increase was effective with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of July 2014. Additional compliance filings were made with the Council in October 2014 for approval of the form of certain rate riders, including among others, a Ninemile 6 non-fuel cost recovery interim rider, allowing for contemporaneous recovery of capacity costs related to the commencement of commercial operation of the Ninemile 6 generating unit and a purchased power capacity cost recovery rider. The monthly Ninemile 6 cost recovery interim rider was implemented in December 2014 to initially collect $915 thousand from Entergy Louisiana customers in the Algiers area. See “Algiers Asset Transfer ” below for discussion of the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that serve Algiers customers.

(Entergy New Orleans)

Formula Rate Plan

In April 2009 the City Council approved a three-year formula rate plan for Entergy New Orleans, with terms including an 11.1% benchmark electric return on common equity (ROE) with a +/-40 basis point bandwidth and a 10.75% benchmark gas ROE with a +/-50 basis point bandwidth.  Earnings outside the bandwidth reset to the midpoint benchmark ROE, with rates changing on a prospective basis depending on whether Entergy New Orleans was over- or under-earning.  The formula rate plan also included a recovery mechanism for City Council-approved capacity additions, plus provisions for extraordinary cost changes and force majeure events.

In May 2012, Entergy New Orleans filed its electric and gas formula rate plan evaluation reports for the 2011 test year.  Subsequent adjustments agreed upon with the City Council Advisors indicate a $4.9 million electric base revenue increase and a $0.05 million gas base revenue increase as necessary under the formula rate plan.  As part of the original filing, Entergy New Orleans also requested to increase annual funding for its storm reserve by approximately $5.7 million for five years.  On September 26, 2012, Entergy New Orleans made a filing with the City Council that implemented the $4.9 million electric formula rate plan rate increase and the $0.05 million gas formula rate plan rate increase.  The new rates were effective with the first billing cycle in October 2012.  In August 2013 the City Council unanimously approved a settlement of all issues in the formula rate plan proceeding.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Entergy New Orleans implemented an approximately $1.625 million net decrease to the electric rates that were in effect prior to the electric rate increase implemented in October 2012, with no change in gas rates.  Entergy New Orleans refunded to customers approximately $6 million over the four-month period from September 2013 through December 2013 to make the electric rate decrease effective as of the first billing cycle of October 2012.  Entergy New Orleans had previously recorded provisions for the majority of the refund to customers, but recorded an additional $1.1 million provision in second quarter 2013 as a result of the settlement. Entergy New Orleans’s formula rate plan ended with the 2011 test year and has not been extended.  

See “Algiers Asset Transfer ” below for discussion of the Algiers asset transfer. As a provision of the settlement agreement approved by the City Council in May 2015 providing for the Algiers asset transfer, it was agreed that, with limited exceptions, no action may be taken with respect to Entergy New Orleans’s base rates until rates are implemented from a base rate case that must be filed for its electric and gas operations in 2018. This provision eliminated the formula rate plan applicable to Algiers operations. The limited exceptions include continued implementation of the remaining two years of the four-year phased-in rate increase for its operations in the Algiers area and certain exceptional cost increases or decreases in its base revenue requirement. An additional provision of the settlement agreement allows for continued recovery of the revenue requirement associated with the capacity and energy from Ninemile 6 received by Entergy New Orleans under a power purchase agreement with Entergy Louisiana (Algiers PPA). The settlement authorizes Entergy New Orleans to recover the remaining revenue requirement related to the Algiers PPA through base rates charged to Algiers customers. The settlement also provided for continued implementation of the Algiers MISO recovery rider.

In addition to the Algiers PPA, Entergy New Orleans has a separate power purchase agreement with Entergy Louisiana for 20% of the capacity and energy of the Ninemile Unit 6 generating station (Ninemile PPA), which commenced operation in December 2014. Initially, recovery of the non-fuel costs associated with the Ninemile PPA was authorized through a special Ninemile 6 rider billed to only Entergy New Orleans customers outside of Algiers.

In August 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to proceed with the acquisition of Union Power Block 1, with an expected base purchase price of approximately $237 million, subject to adjustments, and seeking approval of the recovery of the associated costs. In November 2015 the City Council issued written resolutions and an order approving an agreement in principle between Entergy New Orleans and City Council advisors providing that the purchase of Union Power Block 1 and related assets by Entergy New Orleans is prudent and in the public interest. The City Council authorized expansion of the special Ninemile 6 rider, discussed above, to cover the non-fuel purchased power from Ninemile 6 as well as the revenue requirement associated with the acquisition of Union Power Block 1, upon closing of the transaction.

A 2008 rate case settlement included $3.1 million per year in electric rates to fund the Energy Smart energy efficiency programs.  In September 2009 the City Council approved the energy efficiency programs filed by Entergy New Orleans.  The rate settlement provides an incentive for Entergy New Orleans to meet or exceed energy savings targets set by the City Council and provides a mechanism for Entergy New Orleans to recover lost contribution to fixed costs associated with the energy savings generated from the energy efficiency programs. In October 2013 the City Council approved the extension of the current Energy Smart program through December 2014. The City Council approved the use of $3.5 million of rough production cost equalization funds for program costs. In addition, Entergy New Orleans will be allowed to recover its lost contribution to fixed costs and to earn an incentive for meeting program goals. In January 2015 the City Council approved extending the Energy Smart program through March 2015 and using $1.2 million of rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs for the extended period. Additionally, the City Council approved funding for the Energy Smart 2 programs from April 2015 through March 2017 using the remainder of the approximately $12.8 million of 2014 rough production cost equalization funds, and with any remaining costs being recovered through the fuel adjustment clause. This funding methodology was modified in November 2015 when the City Council directed Entergy New Orleans to use a combination of guaranteed customer savings related to a prior agreement with the City Council and rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs prior to recovering any costs through the fuel adjustment clause.

Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas)

Retail Rates

2011 Rate Case

In November 2011, Entergy Texas filed a rate case requesting a $112 million base rate increase reflecting a 10.6% return on common equity based on an adjusted June 2011 test year.  The rate case also proposed a purchased power recovery rider.  On January 12, 2012, the PUCT voted not to address the purchased power recovery rider in the current rate case, but the PUCT voted to set a baseline in the rate case proceeding that would be applicable if a purchased power capacity rider is approved in a separate proceeding.  In April 2012 the PUCT Staff filed direct testimony recommending a base rate increase of $66 million and a 9.6% return on common equity.  The PUCT Staff, however, subsequently filed a statement of position in the proceeding indicating that it was still evaluating the position it would ultimately take in the case regarding Entergy Texas’s recovery of purchased power capacity costs and Entergy Texas’s proposal to defer its MISO transition expenses.  In April 2012, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony indicating a revised request for a $105 million base rate increase.  A hearing was held in late-April through early-May 2012.

In September 2012 the PUCT issued an order approving a $28 million rate increase, effective July 2012.  The order includes a finding that “a return on common equity (ROE) of 9.80 percent will allow [Entergy Texas] a reasonable opportunity to earn a reasonable return on invested capital.”  The order also provides for increases in depreciation rates and the annual storm reserve accrual.  The order also reduced Entergy Texas’s proposed purchased power capacity costs, stating that they are not known and measurable; reduced Entergy Texas’s regulatory assets associated with Hurricane Rita; excluded from rate recovery capitalized financially-based incentive compensation; included $1.6 million of MISO transition expense in base rates, and reduced Entergy’s Texas’s fuel reconciliation recovery by $4 million because it disagreed with the line-loss factor used in the calculation.  After considering the progress of the proceeding in light of the PUCT order, Entergy Texas recorded in the third quarter 2012 an approximate $24 million charge to recognize that assets associated with Hurricane Rita, financially-based incentive compensation, and fuel recovery are no longer probable of recovery.  Entergy Texas continues to believe that it is entitled to recover these prudently incurred costs, however, and it filed a motion for rehearing regarding these and several other issues in the PUCT’s order on October 4, 2012.  Several other parties also filed motions for rehearing of the PUCT’s order.  The PUCT subsequently denied rehearing of substantive issues.  Several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. A hearing was held in July 2014. In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced above, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Briefs were filed by the appealing and responding parties in the first half of 2015. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. The appeal is currently pending.

2013 Rate Case

In September 2013, Entergy Texas filed a rate case requesting a $38.6 million base rate increase reflecting a 10.4% return on common equity based on an adjusted test year ending March 31, 2013. The rate case also proposed (1) a rough production cost equalization adjustment rider recovering Entergy Texas’s payment to Entergy New Orleans to achieve rough production cost equalization based on calendar year 2012 production costs and (2) a rate case expense rider recovering the cost of the 2013 rate case and certain costs associated with previous rate cases. The rate case filing also included a request to reconcile $0.9 billion of fuel and purchased power costs and fuel revenues covering the period July 2011 through March 2013. The fuel reconciliation also reflects special circumstances fuel cost recovery of approximately $22 million of purchased power capacity costs. In January 2014 the PUCT staff filed direct testimony recommending a retail rate reduction of $0.3 million and a 9.2% return on common equity. In March 2014, Entergy Texas filed an Agreed Motion for Interim Rates. The motion explained that the parties to this proceeding have agreed that Entergy Texas should be allowed to implement new rates reflecting an $18.5 million base rate increase, effective for usage on and after April 1, 2014, as well as recovery of charges for rough production cost equalization and rate case expenses. In March 2014 the State Office of Administrative Hearings, the body assigned to hear the case, approved the motion. In April 2014, Entergy Texas filed a unanimous stipulation in this case. Among other things, the stipulation provides for an $18.5 million base rate increase, provides for recovery over three years of the calendar year 2012 rough production cost equalization charges and rate case expenses, and states a 9.8% return on common equity. In addition, the stipulation finalizes the fuel and purchased power reconciliation covering the period July 2011 through March 2013, with the parties stipulating an immaterial fuel disallowance. No special circumstances recovery of purchased power capacity costs was allowed. In April 2014 the State Office of Administrative Hearings remanded the case back to the PUCT for final processing. In May 2014 the PUCT approved the stipulation. No motions for rehearing were filed during the statutory rehearing period.

2015 Rate Case

In June 2015, Entergy Texas filed a rate case that included pro forma adjustments to reflect the proposed acquisition of Union Power Station Power Block 1, which is one of four units that comprise the Union Power Station near El Dorado, Arkansas. Previously in 2015 Entergy Texas made a filing with the PUCT requesting that it grant a certificate of convenience and necessity for the Union acquisition. In July 2015 the PUCT requested briefing on legal and policy issues related to, among other things, the propriety of rate recovery for the Union Power transaction given the uncertainty of the actual closing date of the transaction and the commencement of the rate year, as well as Entergy Texas’s requirement for acceptable rate treatment as a condition to closing the transaction. Also in July 2015, in connection with the requested briefing, the PUCT staff and certain parties filed briefs concluding that Entergy Texas should not be permitted recovery for the Union Power Station purchase in the rate case. Based on the opposition to the acquisition of the power block, Entergy Texas determined it was appropriate to seek to dismiss the certificate of convenience and necessity filing and withdraw the rate case. In July 2015, Entergy Texas filed its notice of withdrawal of its base rate case and the ALJs in the case dismissed the case from the dockets of the State Office of Administrative Hearings and the PUCT. In the third quarter 2015, Entergy Texas wrote off $4.7 million in rate case expenses and acquisition costs related to the proposed Union Power Station acquisition.

Other Filings

In September 2014, Entergy Texas filed for a distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider based on a law that was passed in 2011 allowing for the recovery of increases in capital costs associated with distribution plant. Entergy Texas requested collection of approximately $7 million annually from retail customers. The parties reached a unanimous settlement authorizing recovery of $3.6 million annually commencing with usage on and after January 1, 2015. A State Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ issued an order in December 2014 authorizing this recovery on an interim basis and remanded the case to the PUCT. In February 2015 the PUCT entered a final order, making the settlement final and the interim rates permanent. In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed to amend its distribution cost recovery factor rider. Entergy Texas requested an increase in recovery under the rider of $6.5 million, for a total collection of $10.1 million annually from retail customers. In October 2015 intervenors and PUCT staff filed testimony opposing, in part, Entergy Texas’s request. In November 2015 Entergy Texas and the parties filed an unopposed settlement agreement and supporting documents. The settlement established an annual revenue requirement of $8.65 million for the amended DCRF rider, with the resulting rates effective for usage on and after January 1, 2016. The PUCT approved the settlement agreement in February 2016.

In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony was filed in November 2015, with the PUCT staff and other parties proposing various disallowances that would reduce the requested increase. The largest remaining single disallowance is $3.4 million which would impose a load growth adjustment on Entergy Texas’s TCRF rider. A hearing on the merits was held in December 2015. A proposal for decision from the ALJ is expected in first quarter 2016.

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination

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 application, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana identified potential benefits, including enhanced economic and customer diversity, enhanced geographic and supply diversity, and greater administrative efficiency. In the initial proceedings with the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana estimated that the business combination could produce up to $128 million in measurable customer benefits during the first ten years following the transaction’s close including proposed guaranteed customer credits of $97 million in the first nine years.  In April 2015 the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony in the LPSC business combination proceeding. The testimony recommended an extensive set of conditions that would be required in order to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The LPSC staff’s primary concern appeared to be potential shifting in fuel costs between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. In May 2015, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony. After the testimony was filed with the LPSC, the parties engaged in settlement discussions that ultimately led to the execution of an uncontested stipulated settlement (“stipulated settlement”), which was filed with the LPSC in July 2015. Through the stipulated settlement, the parties agreed to terms upon which to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The stipulated settlement, which was either joined, or unopposed, by all parties to the LPSC proceeding, represents a compromise of stakeholder positions and was the result of an extensive period of analysis, discovery, and negotiation. The stipulated settlement provides $107 million in guaranteed customer benefits during the first nine years following the transaction’s close. Additionally, the combined company will honor the 2013 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana rate case settlements, including the commitments that (1) there will be no rate increase for legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers for the 2014 test year, and (2) through the 2016 test year formula rate plan, Entergy Louisiana (as a combined entity) will not raise rates by more than $30 million, net of the $10 million rate increase included in the Entergy Louisiana legacy formula rate plan. The stipulated settlement also describes the process for implementing a fuel-tracking mechanism that is designed to address potential effects arising from the shifting of fuel costs between legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers as a result of the combination of those companies’ fuel adjustment clauses. Specifically, the fuel tracker would reallocate such cost shifts as between legacy customers of the companies on an after-the-fact basis, and the calculation of the fuel tracker will be submitted annually in a compliance filing. The stipulated settlement also provides that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana are permitted to defer certain external costs that were incurred to achieve the business combination’s customer benefits. The deferred amount, which shall not exceed $25 million, will be subject to a prudence review and amortized over a 10-year period. In 2015 deferrals of $16 million for these external costs were recorded. A hearing on the stipulated settlement in the LPSC proceeding was held in July 2015. In August 2015 the LPSC approved the business combination.

In April 2015 the FERC approved applications requesting authorization for the business combination. In August 2015 the NRC approved the applications for the River Bend and Waterford 3 license transfers as part of the steps to complete the business combination.

On October 1, 2015, the businesses formerly conducted by Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana were combined into a single public utility. With the completion of the business combination, Entergy Louisiana holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed the liabilities, of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The combination was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control. The effect of the business combination has been retrospectively applied to Entergy Louisiana's financial statements that are presented in this report. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the customer credits resulting from the business combination.

Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans)

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 supported the provision of service to Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers assets transfer. In May 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement authorizing the Algiers assets transfer and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in May 2015. On September 1, 2015, Entergy Louisiana transferred its Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans for a purchase price of approximately $85 million, subject to closing adjustments. Entergy New Orleans paid Entergy Louisiana $59.6 million, including final true-ups, from available cash and issued a note payable to Entergy Louisiana in the amount of $25.5 million. See Note 1 to the financial statements for a discussion of the accounting for the Algiers asset transfer and the basis of presentation for the Entergy New Orleans’s financial statements presented in this report.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

The Utility operating companies historically have engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which is a rate schedule that has been approved by the FERC.  Certain of the Utility operating companies’ retail regulators and other parties are pursuing litigation involving the System Agreement at the FERC.  The proceedings include challenges to the allocation of costs as defined by the System Agreement and allegations of imprudence by the Utility operating companies in their execution of their obligations under the System Agreement.

In June 2005 the FERC issued a decision in System Agreement litigation that had been commenced by the LPSC, and essentially affirmed its decision in a December 2005 order on rehearing.  The FERC decision concluded, among other things, that:

• The System Agreement no longer roughly equalizes total production costs among the Utility operating companies.

• In order to reach rough production cost equalization, the FERC imposed a bandwidth remedy by which each company’s total annual production costs will have to be within +/- 11% of Entergy System average total annual production costs.

• In calculating the production costs for this purpose under the FERC’s order, output from the Vidalia hydroelectric power plant will not reflect the actual Vidalia price for the year but is priced at that year’s average price paid by Entergy Louisiana for the exchange of electric energy under Service Schedule MSS-3 of the System Agreement, thereby reducing the amount of Vidalia costs reflected in the comparison of the Utility operating companies’ total production costs.

• The remedy ordered by FERC in 2005 required no refunds and became effective based on calendar year 2006 production costs and the first reallocation payments were made in 2007.

The FERC’s decision reallocates total production costs of the Utility operating companies whose relative total production costs expressed as a percentage of Entergy System average production costs are outside an upper or lower bandwidth.  Under the current circumstances, this will be accomplished by payments from Utility operating companies whose production costs are more than 11% below Entergy System average production costs to Utility operating companies whose production costs are more than the Entergy System average production cost, with payments going first to those Utility operating companies whose total production costs are farthest above the Entergy System average.

The financial consequences of the FERC’s decision are determined by the total production cost of each Utility operating company, which are affected by the mix of solid fuel and gas-fired generation available to each company and the costs of natural gas and purchased power.  Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Texas, and Entergy Mississippi are more dependent upon gas-fired generation sources than Entergy Arkansas or Entergy New Orleans.  Of these, Entergy Arkansas is the least dependent upon gas-fired generation sources.  Therefore, increases in natural gas prices generally increased the amount by which Entergy Arkansas’s total production costs were below the Entergy System average production costs.

The LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers appealed the FERC’s December 2005 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  Entergy and the City of New Orleans intervened in the various appeals.  The D.C. Circuit issued its decision in April 2008.  The D.C. Circuit concluded that the FERC’s orders had failed to adequately explain both its conclusion that it was prohibited from ordering refunds for the 20-month period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003 and its determination to implement the bandwidth remedy commencing on January 1, 2006, rather than June 1, 2005.  The D.C. Circuit remanded the case to the FERC for further proceedings on these issues.

In October 2011, the FERC issued an order addressing the D.C. Circuit remand on these two issues.  On the first issue, the FERC concluded that it did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-month period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003.  Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, which is discussed in a separate section below, the FERC concluded that the refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in that proceeding.  On the second issue, the FERC reversed its prior decision and ordered that the prospective bandwidth remedy begin on June 1, 2005 (the date of its initial order in the proceeding) rather than January 1, 2006, as it had previously ordered.  Pursuant to the October 2011 order, Entergy was required to calculate the additional bandwidth payments for the period June - December 2005 utilizing the bandwidth formula tariff prescribed by the FERC that was filed in a December 2006 compliance filing and accepted by the FERC in an April 2007 order.  As is the case with bandwidth remedy payments, these payments and receipts will ultimately be paid by Utility operating company customers to other Utility operating company customers. 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 an 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. In October 2015 the FERC issued three orders related to the commencement of the remedy on June 1, 2005 and the inclusion of interest on the amount for the period June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. Specifically, the FERC rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of its decision to include interest on the amount for the seven-month period. The FERC also rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of the order rejecting the compliance filing with regard to the issue of interest. Finally, the FERC set for hearing and settlement procedures the 2014 compliance filing that included the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. In setting the compliance filing for hearing, the FERC rejected the APSC’s protest that Entergy Arkansas should not be subject to the filing because Entergy Arkansas would be making the payments during a period following its exit from the System Agreement. The hearing on the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 is scheduled to occur in July 2016.

In December 2011, Entergy filed with the FERC its compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s October 2011 order.  The filing shows the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$156
Entergy Louisiana	($75)
Entergy Mississippi	($33)
Entergy New Orleans	($5)
Entergy Texas	($43)

Entergy Arkansas made its payment in January 2012.  In February 2012, Entergy Arkansas filed for an interim adjustment to its production cost allocation rider requesting that the $156 million payment be collected from customers over the 22-month period from March 2012 through December 2013.  In March 2012 the APSC issued an order stating that the payment can be recovered from retail customers through the production cost allocation rider, subject to refund.  The LPSC and the APSC have requested rehearing of the FERC’s October 2011 order.  In December 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for a writ of mandamus at the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In its petition, the LPSC requested that the D.C. Circuit issue an order compelling the FERC to issue a final order on pending rehearing requests. In January 2014 the D.C. Circuit denied the LPSC’s petition. The APSC, the LPSC, the PUCT, and other parties intervened in the December 2011 compliance filing proceeding, and the APSC and the LPSC also filed protests.

In February 2014 the FERC issued a rehearing order addressing its October 2011 order. The FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing on the issues of whether the bandwidth remedy should be made effective earlier than June 1, 2005, and whether refunds should be ordered for the 20-month refund effective period. The FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request on the issue of interest on the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period, requiring that interest be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date those bandwidth payments/receipts are made. Also in February 2014 the FERC issued an order rejecting the December 2011 compliance filing that calculated the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. The FERC order required a new compliance filing that calculates the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period based on monthly data for the seven individual months including interest pursuant to the February 2014 rehearing order. Entergy has sought rehearing of the February 2014 orders with respect to the FERC’s determinations regarding interest. In April 2014 the LPSC filed a petition for review of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The appeal is pending.

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

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$68
Entergy Louisiana	($10)
Entergy Mississippi	($11)
Entergy New Orleans	$2
Entergy Texas	($49)

These payments were made in May 2014. The LPSC, City Council, and APSC have filed protests.

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

Each May since 2007 Entergy has filed with the FERC the rates to implement the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  These filings show the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies are necessary to achieve rough production cost equalization as defined by the FERC’s orders:

	Payments (Receipts)
	2007			2008			2009			2010			2011			2012			2013			2014
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas		$252			$252			$390			$41			$77			$41			$—			$—
Entergy Louisiana		($211	)		($160	)		($247	)		($22	)		($12	)		($41	)		$—			$—
Entergy Mississippi		($41	)		($20	)		($24	)		($19	)		($40	)		$—			$—			$—
Entergy New Orleans		$—			($7	)		$—			$—			($25	)		$—			($15	)		($15	)
Entergy Texas		($30	)		($65	)		($119	)		$—			$—			$—			$15			$15

The Utility operating companies record, as necessary, accounts payable or accounts receivable to reflect the rough production cost equalization payments and receipts required to implement the FERC’s remedy.  When accounts payable are recorded, a corresponding regulatory asset is recorded for the right to collect the payments from customers. When accounts receivable are recorded, a corresponding regulatory liability is recorded for the obligations to pass the receipts on to customers.  As discussed below, no payments and receipts were required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Entergy Arkansas ceased participating in the System Agreement on December 18, 2013 and was not part of the calendar year 2013 or 2014 production costs calculations.

The APSC has approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Texas is recovering its 2013 rough production cost equalization payment over three years beginning April 2014. Entergy Texas included its 2014 rough production cost equalization payment as component of an interim fuel refund made in 2014. Management believes that any changes in the allocation of production costs resulting from the FERC’s decision and related retail proceedings should result in similar rate changes for retail customers, subject to specific circumstances that have caused trapped costs.  

Comprehensive Bandwidth Recalculation for 2007, 2008, and 2009 Rate Filing Proceedings

In July 2014 the FERC issued four orders in connection with various Service Schedule MSS-3 rough production cost equalization formula compliance filings and rehearing requests. Specifically, the FERC accepted Entergy Services’ revised methodologies for calculating certain cost components of the formula and affirmed its prior ruling requiring interest on the true-up amounts. The FERC directed that a comprehensive recalculation of the formula be performed for the filing years 2007, 2008, and 2009 based on calendar years 2006, 2007, and 2008 production costs. In September 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC its compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts, including interest, among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s orders for the 2007, 2008, and 2009 rate filing proceedings. The filing shows the following additional payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$38
Entergy Louisiana	($38)
Entergy Mississippi	$16
Entergy New Orleans	($1)
Entergy Texas	($15)

Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi made the payments in September and October 2014.

The FERC proceedings that resulted from rate filings made in 2007, 2008, and 2009 have been resolved by various orders issued by the FERC and appellate courts. See below for a discussion of rate filings since 2009 and the comprehensive recalculation filing directed by the FERC in the proceeding related to the 2010 rate filing.

2010 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2009 Production Costs

In May 2010, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2010 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding, and supplemented the filing in September 2010.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC and the City Council, which also filed protests.  In July 2010 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2010, subject to refund, and set the proceeding for hearing and settlement procedures.  Settlement procedures have been terminated, and the ALJ scheduled hearings to begin in March 2011.  Subsequently, in January 2011 the ALJ issued an order directing the parties and FERC Staff to show cause why this proceeding should not be stayed pending the issuance of FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review.  In March 2011 the ALJ issued an order placing this proceeding in abeyance. In October 2013 the FERC issued an order granting clarification and denying rehearing with respect to its October 2011 rehearing order in this proceeding. The FERC clarified that in a bandwidth proceeding parties can challenge erroneous inputs, implementation errors, or prudence of cost inputs, but challenges to the bandwidth formula itself must be raised in a Federal Power Act section 206 complaint or section 205 filing. Subsequently in October 2013 the presiding ALJ lifted the stay order holding in abeyance the hearing previously ordered by the FERC and directing that the remaining issues proceed to a hearing on the merits. The hearing was held in March 2014 and the presiding ALJ issued an initial decision in September 2014. Briefs on exception were filed in October 2014. In December 2015 the FERC issued an order affirming the initial decision in part and rejecting the initial decision in part. Among other things, the December 2015 order directs Entergy Services to submit a compliance filing, the results of which may affect the rough production cost equalization filings made for the June - December 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 test periods. In January 2016 the LPSC, the APSC, and Entergy Services filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s December 2015 order. In February 2016, Entergy Services submitted the compliance filing ordered in the December 2015 order.  The result of the true-up payments and receipts for the recalculation of production costs resulted in the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$2
Entergy Louisiana	$6
Entergy Mississippi	($4)
Entergy New Orleans	($1)
Entergy Texas	($3)

2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs

In May 2011, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2011 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest.  In July 2011 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2011, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review. In January 2014 the LPSC filed a petition for a writ of mandamus at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In its petition, the LPSC requested that the Fifth Circuit issue an order compelling the FERC to issue a final order in several proceedings related to the System Agreement, including the 2011 rate filing based on calendar year 2010 production costs and the 2012 and 2013 rate filings discussed below. In March 2014 the Fifth Circuit rejected the LPSC’s petition for a writ of mandamus. In December 2014 the FERC rescinded its earlier abeyance order and consolidated the 2011 rate filing with the 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs

In May 2012, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2012 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest.  In August 2012 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 2012, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review. In December 2014 the FERC rescinded its earlier abeyance order and consolidated the 2012 rate filing with the 2011, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs

In May 2013, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2013 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest. The City Council intervened and filed comments related to including the outcome of a related FERC proceeding in the 2013 cost equalization calculation. In August 2013 the FERC issued an order accepting the 2013 rates, effective June 1, 2013, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review. In December 2014 the FERC rescinded its earlier abeyance order and consolidated the 2013 Rate Filing with the 2011, 2012, and 2014 Rate Filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs

In May 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2014 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest. The City Council intervened and filed comments. In December 2014 the FERC issued an order accepting the 2014 rates, effective June 1, 2014, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and consolidated the 2014 Rate Filing with the 2011, 2012, and 2013 Rate Filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

Consolidated 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Rate Filing Proceedings

As discussed above, in December 2014 the FERC consolidated the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. 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. In July 2015 the parties filed direct and answering testimony. Among other issues with the pending bandwidth calculations, the LPSC challenged the administration of the accounting for joint account sales of energy in the intra-system bill. In August and September 2015 the parties filed additional rounds of testimony in the consolidated hearing for the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings. In October 2015 the LPSC withdrew its testimony challenging the accounting for joint account sales of energy. The hearings occurred in November 2015, and an initial decision from the ALJ is expected in July 2016.

2015 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2014 Production Costs

In May 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2015 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing showed that no payments and receipts were required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC and City Council intervened and filed comments. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2015 rates for filing, suspended them for a nominal period, to become effective June 1, 2015, as requested, subject to refund, and set them for hearing and settlement judge procedures.

Calendar Year 2015 Production Costs

Entergy preliminarily estimates that no payments and receipts are required in 2016 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2015 production costs. The actual payments/receipts for 2016, based on calendar year 2015 production costs, will not be calculated until the Utility operating companies’ 2015 FERC Form 1s have been filed. Once the calculation is completed, it will be filed at the FERC. The level of any payments and receipts is significantly affected by a number of factors, including, among others, weather, the price of alternative fuels, the operating characteristics of the Entergy System generating fleet, and multiple factors affecting the calculation of the non-fuel related revenue requirement components of the total production costs, such as plant investment. The calculation based on 2015 production costs will be the last rough production cost equalization filing submitted by the Utility operating companies because the System Agreement will terminate at the end of August 2016.

Utility Operating Company Termination of System Agreement Participation

Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi ceased participating in the System Agreement effective December 18, 2013 and November 7, 2015, respectively. Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas will terminate participation in the System Agreement on August 31, 2016, which will result in the termination of the System Agreement in its entirety pursuant to a settlement agreement approved by the FERC in December 2015.

In connection with the System Agreement termination settlement agreement, it was determined that the purchase power agreements, referred to as the jurisdictional separation plan PPAs, between Entergy Texas and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana that were put in place for certain legacy gas units at the time of Entergy Gulf States’s separation into Entergy Texas and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana will terminate effective with System Agreement termination. Similarly, the PPA between Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Texas for the Calcasieu unit also will terminate. Currently, the jurisdictional separation plan PPAs are the means by which Entergy Texas receives payment for its receivable associated with Entergy Louisiana’s Spindletop gas storage facility regulatory asset. As a result of the System Agreement termination settlement agreement, effective with the termination date, Entergy Texas will no longer receive payments from Entergy Louisiana related to the Spindletop storage facility which resulted in a write-off recorded in 2015 by Entergy Texas of $23.5 million ($15.3 million net-of-tax).

Interruptible Load Proceeding

In April 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in the LPSC’s appeal of the FERC’s March 2004 and April 2005 orders related to the treatment under the System Agreement of the Utility operating companies’ interruptible loads.  In its opinion the D.C. Circuit concluded that the FERC (1) acted arbitrarily and capriciously by allowing the Utility operating companies to phase-in the effects of the elimination of the interruptible load over a 12-month period of time; (2) failed to adequately explain why refunds could not be ordered under Section 206(c) of the Federal Power Act; and (3) exercised appropriately its discretion to defer addressing the cost of sulfur dioxide allowances until a later time.  The D.C. Circuit remanded the matter to the FERC for a more considered determination on the issue of refunds.  The FERC issued its order on remand in September 2007, in which it directed Entergy to make a compliance filing removing all interruptible load from the computation of peak load responsibility commencing April 1, 2004 and to issue any necessary refunds to reflect this change.  In addition, the order directed the Utility operating companies to make refunds for the period May 1995 through July 1996.  In November 2007 the Utility operating companies filed a refund report describing the refunds to be issued pursuant to the FERC’s orders.  The LPSC filed a protest to the refund report in December 2007, and the Utility operating companies filed an answer to the protest in January 2008.  The refunds were made in October 2008 by the Utility operating companies that owed refunds to the Utility operating companies that were due a refund under the decision.  The APSC and the Utility operating companies appealed the FERC decisions to the D.C. Circuit.   

Following the filing of petitioners’ initial briefs, the FERC filed a motion requesting the D.C. Circuit hold the appeal of the FERC’s decisions ordering refunds in the interruptible load proceeding in abeyance and remand the record to the FERC.  The D.C. Circuit granted the FERC’s unopposed motion in June 2009.  In December 2009 the FERC established a paper hearing to determine whether the FERC had the authority and, if so, whether it would be appropriate to order refunds resulting from changes in the treatment of interruptible load in the allocation of capacity costs by the Utility operating companies.  In August 2010 the FERC issued an order stating that it has the authority and refunds are appropriate.  The APSC, MPSC, and Entergy requested rehearing of the FERC’s decision.  In June 2011 the FERC issued an order granting rehearing in part and denying rehearing in part, in which the FERC determined to invoke its discretion to deny refunds.  The FERC held that in this case where “the Entergy system as a whole collected the proper level of revenue, but, as was later established, incorrectly allocated peak load responsibility among the various Entergy operating companies….the Commission will apply here our usual practice in such cases, invoking our equitable discretion to not order refunds, notwithstanding our authority to do so.”  The LPSC has requested rehearing of the FERC’s June 2011 decision.  In July 2011 the refunds made in the fourth quarter 2009 described above were reversed. In October 2011 the FERC issued an “Order Establishing Paper Hearing” inviting parties that oppose refunds to file briefs within 30 days addressing the LPSC’s argument that FERC precedent supports refunds under the circumstances present in this proceeding.  Parties that favor refunds were then invited to file reply briefs within 21 days of the date that the initial briefs are due.  Briefs were submitted and the matter is pending.

In September 2010 the FERC had issued an order setting the refund report filed in the proceeding in November 2007 for hearing and settlement judge procedures.  In May 2011, Entergy filed a settlement agreement that resolved all issues relating to the refund report set for hearing.  In June 2011 the settlement judge certified the settlement as uncontested and the settlement agreement is currently pending before the FERC.  In July 2011, Entergy filed an amended/corrected refund report and a motion to defer action on the settlement agreement until after the FERC rules on the LPSC’s rehearing request regarding the June 2011 decision denying refunds.

Prior to the FERC’s June 2011 order on rehearing, Entergy Arkansas filed an application in November 2010 with the APSC for recovery of the refund that it paid.  The APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s application, and also denied Entergy Arkansas’s petition for rehearing.  If the FERC were to order Entergy Arkansas to pay refunds on rehearing in the interruptible load proceeding the APSC’s decision would trap FERC-approved costs at Entergy Arkansas with no regulatory-approved mechanism to recover them.  In August 2011, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas asking for a declaratory judgment that the rejection of Entergy Arkansas’s application by the APSC is preempted by the Federal Power Act.  The APSC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  In April 2012 the United States district court dismissed Entergy Arkansas’s complaint without prejudice stating that Entergy Arkansas’s claim is not ripe for adjudication and that Entergy Arkansas did not have standing to bring suit at this time.

In March 2013 the FERC issued an order denying the LPSC’s request for rehearing of the FERC’s June 2011 order wherein the FERC concluded it would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in the interruptible load proceeding. Based on its review of the LPSC’s request for rehearing and the briefs filed as part of the paper hearing established in October 2011, the FERC affirmed its earlier ruling and declined to order refunds under the circumstances of the case. 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 the proceeding. Oral argument was held on the appeal in the D.C. Circuit in September 2014. 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. The matter is pending.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

In June 2009, the LPSC filed a complaint requesting that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocate the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibits sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies.   The LPSC’s complaint challenges sales made beginning in 2002 and requests refunds.  In July 2009 the Utility operating companies filed a response to the complaint requesting that the FERC dismiss the complaint on the merits without hearing because the LPSC has failed to meet its burden of showing any violation of the System Agreement and failed to produce any evidence of imprudent action by the Entergy System.  In their response, the Utility operating companies explained that the System Agreement clearly contemplates that the Utility operating companies may make sales to third parties for their own account, subject to the requirement that those sales be included in the load (or load shape) for the applicable Utility operating company.  The response further explained that the FERC already had determined that Entergy Arkansas’s short-term wholesale sales did not trigger the “right-of-first-refusal” provision of the System Agreement.  While the D.C. Circuit recently determined that the “right-of-first-refusal” issue was not properly before the FERC at the time of its earlier decision on the issue, the LPSC raised no additional claims or facts that would warrant the FERC reaching a different conclusion.

The LPSC filed direct testimony in the proceeding alleging, among other things, (1) that Entergy violated the System Agreement by permitting Entergy Arkansas to make non-requirements sales to non-affiliated third parties rather than making such energy available to the other Utility operating companies’ customers; and (2) that over the period 2000 - 2009, these non-requirements sales caused harm to the Utility operating companies’ customers and these customers should be compensated for this harm by Entergy.  In subsequent testimony, the LPSC modified its original damages claim in favor of quantifying damages by re-running intra-system bills.  The Utility operating companies believe the LPSC’s allegations are without merit.  A hearing in the matter was held in August 2010.

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

The FERC issued a decision in June 2012 and held that, while the System Agreement is ambiguous, it does provide authority for individual Utility operating companies to make opportunity sales for their own account and Entergy Arkansas made and priced these sales in good faith.  The FERC found, however, that the System Agreement does not provide authority for an individual Utility operating company to allocate the energy associated with such opportunity sales as part of its load, but provides a different allocation authority.  The FERC further found that the after-the-fact accounting methodology used to allocate the energy used to supply the sales was inconsistent with the System Agreement.  Quantifying the effect of the FERC’s decision will require re-running intra-system bills for a ten-year period, and the FERC in its decision established further hearing procedures to determine the calculation of the effects.  In July 2012, Entergy and the LPSC filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s June 2012 decision, which are pending with the FERC.

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

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

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy Arkansas

Entergy Arkansas December 2012 Winter Storm

In December 2012 a severe winter storm consisting of ice, snow, and high winds caused significant damage to Entergy Arkansas’s distribution lines, equipment, poles, and other facilities.  Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Arkansas’s electrical facilities in areas damaged from the winter storm were $63 million, including costs recorded as regulatory assets of approximately $22 million.  In the Entergy Arkansas 2013 rate case, the APSC approved inclusion of the construction spending in rate base and approved an increase in the normal storm cost accrual.

Entergy Louisiana

Hurricane Isaac

In August 2012, Hurricane Isaac caused extensive damage to portions of Entergy’s service area in Louisiana, and to a lesser extent in Mississippi and Arkansas.  The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages.  In January 2013, Entergy Louisiana drew $252 million, from its funded storm reserve escrow accounts.  In April 2013, Entergy Louisiana filed a joint application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs.  Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested that the LPSC determine the amount of such costs that were prudently incurred and are, thus, eligible for recovery from customers.  Including carrying costs and additional storm escrow funds for prior storms, Entergy Louisiana requested an LPSC determination that $321.5 million in system restoration costs were prudently incurred. In May 2013, Entergy Louisiana, and the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation (LURC), an instrumentality of the State of Louisiana, filed with the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant financing orders authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Act 55 of the Louisiana Regular Session of 2007 (Louisiana Act 55). The LPSC Staff filed direct testimony in September 2013 concluding that Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs incurred by Entergy Louisiana were reasonable and prudent, subject to proposed minor adjustments which totaled approximately 1% of the company’s costs. Following an evidentiary hearing and recommendations by the ALJ, the LPSC voted in June 2014 to approve a series of orders which (i) quantify the amount of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs prudently incurred ($290.8 million for Entergy Louisiana); (ii) determine the level of storm reserves to be re-established ($290 million for Entergy Louisiana); (iii) authorize Entergy Louisiana to utilize Louisiana Act 55 financing for Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs; and (iv) grant other requested relief associated with storm reserves and Act 55 financing of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs.  Entergy Louisiana committed to pass on to customers a minimum of $30.8 million of customer benefits through annual customer credits of approximately $6.2 million for five years. Approvals for the Act 55 financings were obtained from the LURC and the Louisiana State Bond Commission.

In July 2014, Entergy Louisiana issued two series totaling $300 million of 3.78% Series first mortgage bonds due April 2025. Entergy Louisiana used the proceeds to re-establish and replenish its storm damage escrow reserves and for general corporate purposes.

In August 2014 the Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority (LCDA) issued $314.85 million in bonds under Louisiana Act 55.  From the $309 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LCDA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $16 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $293 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  Entergy Louisiana used the $293 million received from the LURC to acquire 2,935,152.69 Class C preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy, that carry a 7.5% annual distribution rate. Distributions are payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2014, and the membership interests have a liquidation price of $100 per unit. The preferred membership interests are callable at the option of Entergy Holdings Company LLC after ten years under the terms of the LLC agreement. The terms of the membership interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Holdings Company LLC is subject, including the requirement to maintain a net worth of at least $1.75 billion.

Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LCDA and there is no recourse against Entergy or Entergy Louisiana in the event of a bond default.  To service the bonds, Entergy Louisiana collect a system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC, and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee.  Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as the billing and collection agent for the state.

Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike

In September 2008, Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike caused catastrophic damage to Entergy’s service territory.  Entergy Louisiana filed its Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike storm cost recovery case with the LPSC in May 2009.  In September 2009, Entergy Louisiana and the LURC filed with the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant financing orders authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55. Entergy Louisiana’s Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita storm costs were financed primarily by Louisiana Act 55 financing, as discussed below.  Entergy Louisiana also filed an application requesting LPSC approval for ancillary issues including the mechanism to flow charges and Louisiana Act 55 financing savings to customers via a Storm Cost Offset rider.

In December 2009, Entergy Louisiana entered into a stipulation agreement with the LPSC Staff that provides for total recoverable costs of approximately $628 million, including carrying costs.  Under this stipulation, Entergy Louisiana agrees not to recover $11.6 million of its storm restoration spending.  The stipulation also permits replenishing Entergy Louisiana’s storm reserve in the amount of $290 million when the Act 55 financings are accomplished.  In March and April 2010, Entergy Louisiana and other parties to the proceeding filed with the LPSC an uncontested stipulated settlement that includes these terms and also includes Entergy Louisiana’s proposal under the Act 55 financings, which includes a commitment to pass on to customers a minimum of $43.3 million of customer benefits through a prospective annual rate reduction of $8.7 million for five years.  A stipulation hearing was held before the ALJ on April 13, 2010.  On April 21, 2010, the LPSC approved the settlement and subsequently issued financing orders and a ratemaking order intended to facilitate the implementation of the Act 55 financings.  In June 2010 the Louisiana State Bond Commission approved the Act 55 financing.

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

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

Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita

In August and September 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused catastrophic damage to large portions of the Utility’s service territories in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, including the effect of extensive flooding that resulted from levee breaks in and around the greater New Orleans area.  The storms and flooding resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to electric distribution, transmission, and generation and gas infrastructure, and the loss of sales and customers due to mandatory evacuations and the destruction of homes and businesses.

In March 2008, Entergy Louisiana and the LURC filed at the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant a financing order authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55.  The Louisiana Act 55 financing is expected to produce additional customer benefits as compared to traditional securitization.  Entergy Louisiana also filed an application requesting LPSC approval for ancillary issues including the mechanism to flow charges and savings to customers via a Storm Cost Offset rider.  On April 8, 2008, the Louisiana Public Facilities Authority (LPFA), which is the issuer of the bonds pursuant to the Act 55 financing, approved requests for the Act 55 financing.  On April 10, 2008, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC Staff filed with the LPSC an uncontested stipulated settlement that includes Entergy Louisiana’s proposal under the Act 55 financing, which includes a commitment to pass on to customers a minimum of $40 million of customer benefits through a prospective annual rate reduction of $8 million for five years.  On April 16, 2008, the LPSC approved the settlement and issued two financing orders and one ratemaking order intended to facilitate implementation of the Act 55 financing.  In May 2008 the Louisiana State Bond Commission granted final approval of the Act 55 financing.

In July 2008, the LPFA issued $687.7 million in bonds under the aforementioned Act 55.  From the $679 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LPFA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $152 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $527 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Louisiana invested $545 million, including $17.8 million that was withdrawn from the restricted escrow account as approved by the April 16, 2008 LPSC orders, in exchange for 5,449,861.85 Class A preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy, that carry a 10% annual distribution rate.  In August 2008, the LPFA issued $278.4 million in bonds under the aforementioned Act 55.  From the $274.7 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LPFA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $87 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $187.7 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Louisiana invested $189.4 million, including $1.7 million that was withdrawn from the restricted escrow account as approved by the April 16, 2008 LPSC orders, in exchange for 1,893,918.39 Class A preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC that carry a 10% annual distribution rate.  Distributions are payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2008 and have a liquidation price of $100 per unit.  The preferred membership interests are callable at the option of Entergy Holdings Company LLC after ten years under the terms of the LLC agreement.  The terms of the membership interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Holdings Company LLC is subject, including the requirement to maintain a net worth of at least $1 billion.  In February 2012, Entergy Louisiana sold 500,000 of its Class A preferred membership units in Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a wholly-owned Entergy subsidiary, to a third party in exchange for $51 million plus accrued but unpaid distributions on the units.  The 500,000 preferred membership units are mandatorily redeemable in January 2112.

Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LPFA, and there is no recourse against Entergy or Entergy Louisiana in the event of a bond default.  To service the bonds, Entergy Louisiana collect a system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC, and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee.  Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as the billing and collection agent for the state.

Entergy Mississippi

On July 1, 2013, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation, wherein both parties agreed that approximately $32 million in storm restoration costs incurred in 2011 and 2012 were prudently incurred and chargeable to the storm damage provision, while approximately $700,000 in prudently incurred costs were more properly recoverable through the formula rate plan. Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff also agreed that the storm damage accrual should be increased from $750,000 per month to $1.75 million per month. In September 2013 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with the increase in the storm damage accrual effective with October 2013 bills. In February 2015, Entergy Mississippi provided notice to the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff that the storm damage accrual would be set to zero effective with the March 2015 billing cycle as a result of Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage accrual balance exceeding $15 million as of January 31, 2015, but will return to its current level when the storm damage accrual balance becomes less than $10 million.

Entergy New Orleans

In October 2006 the City Council approved a rate filing settlement agreement that, among other things, authorized a $75 million storm reserve for damage from future storms, which will be created over a ten-year period through a storm reserve rider that began in March 2007.  These storm reserve funds are held in a restricted escrow account until needed in response to a storm.  

In August 2012, Hurricane Isaac caused extensive damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy New Orleans’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Isaac were $47.3 million. Entergy New Orleans withdrew $17.4 million from the storm reserve escrow account to partially offset these costs. In February 2014, Entergy New Orleans made a filing with the City Council seeking certification of the Hurricane Isaac costs. In January 2015 the City Council issued a resolution approving the terms of a joint agreement in principle filed by Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Louisiana, and the City Council Advisors determining, among other things, that Entergy New Orleans’s prudently-incurred storm recovery costs were $49.3 million, of which $31.7 million, net of reimbursements from the storm reserve escrow account, remains recoverable from Entergy New Orleans’s electric customers. The resolution also directs Entergy New Orleans to file an application to securitize the unrecovered Council-approved storm recovery costs of $31.7 million pursuant to the Louisiana Electric Utility Storm Recovery Securitization Act (Louisiana Act 64). In addition, the resolution found that it is reasonable for Entergy New Orleans to include in the principal amount of its potential securitization the costs to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve in an amount that achieves the Council-approved funding level of $75 million. In January 2015, in compliance with that directive, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the financing of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. 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. In May 2015 the parties entered into an agreement in principle and the City Council issued a financing order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to issue storm recovery bonds in the aggregate amount of $98.7 million, including $31.8 million for recovery of Entergy New Orleans’s Hurricane Isaac storm recovery costs, including carrying costs, $63.9 million to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve, and approximately $3 million for estimated up-front financing costs associated with the securitization. See Note 5 to the financial statements for discussion of the issuance of the securitization bonds in July 2015.

New Nuclear Generation Development Costs

Entergy Louisiana

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana were developing a project option for new nuclear generation at River Bend.  In March 2010, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC seeking approval to continue the limited development activities necessary to preserve an option to construct a new unit at River Bend.  At its June 2012 meeting the LPSC voted to uphold an ALJ recommendation that the request of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana be declined on the basis that the LPSC’s rule on new nuclear development does not apply to activities to preserve an option to develop and on the further grounds that the companies improperly engaged in advanced preparation activities prior to certification.  The LPSC directed that Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana be permitted to seek recovery of these costs in their upcoming rate case filings that were subsequently filed in February 2013. In the resolution of the rate case proceeding the LPSC provided for an eight-year amortization of costs incurred in connection with the potential development of new nuclear generation at River Bend, without carrying costs, beginning in December 2014, provided, however, that amortization of these costs shall not result in a future rate increase. As of December 31, 2015, Entergy Louisiana has a regulatory asset of $50.4 million on its balance sheet related to these new nuclear generation development costs.

Entergy Mississippi

Pursuant to the Mississippi Baseload Act and the Mississippi Public Utilities Act, Entergy Mississippi had been developing and preserving a project option for new nuclear generation at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station.  In October 2010, Entergy Mississippi filed an application with the MPSC requesting that the MPSC determine that it was in the public interest to preserve the option to construct new nuclear generation at Grand Gulf and that the MPSC approve the deferral of Entergy Mississippi’s costs incurred to date and in the future related to this project, including the accrual of AFUDC or similar carrying charges.  In October 2011, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed with the MPSC a joint stipulation that the MPSC approved in November 2011.  The stipulation stated that there should be a deferral of the $57 million of costs incurred through September 2011 in connection with planning, evaluation, monitoring, and other and related generation resource development activities for new nuclear generation at Grand Gulf.  

In October 2014, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into and filed joint stipulations in Entergy Mississippi’s general rate case proceeding, which are discussed above. In consideration of the comprehensive terms for settlement in that rate case proceeding, the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff and Entergy Mississippi agreed that Entergy Mississippi would request consolidation of the new nuclear generation development costs proceeding with the rate case proceeding for hearing purposes and will not further pursue, except as noted below, recovery of the costs deferred by MPSC order in the new nuclear generation development docket. The stipulations state, however, that, if Entergy Mississippi decides to move forward with nuclear development in Mississippi, it can at that time re-present for consideration by the MPSC only those costs directly associated with the existing early site permit (ESP), to the extent that the costs are verifiable and prudent and the ESP is still valid and relevant to any such option pursued. After considering the progress of the new nuclear generation costs proceeding in light of the joint stipulations, Entergy Mississippi recorded in 2014 a $56.2 million pre-tax charge to recognize that the regulatory asset associated with new nuclear generation development is no longer probable of recovery. In December 2014 the MPSC issued an order accepting in their entirety the October 2014 stipulations, including the findings and terms of the stipulations regarding new nuclear generation development costs.

Texas Power Price Lawsuit

In August 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the district court of Chambers County, Texas by Texas residents on behalf of a purported class of the Texas retail customers of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. who were billed and paid for electric power from January 1, 1994 to the present.  The named defendants include Entergy Corporation, Entergy Services, Entergy Power, Entergy Power Marketing Corp., and Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Gulf States, Inc. was not a named defendant, but was alleged to be a co-conspirator.  The court granted the request of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. to intervene in the lawsuit to protect its interests.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a “price gouging accounting scheme” to sell to plaintiffs and similarly situated utility customers higher priced power generated by the defendants while rejecting less expensive power offered from off-system suppliers.  In particular, plaintiffs allege that the defendants manipulated and continue to manipulate the dispatch of generation so that power is purchased from affiliated expensive resources instead of buying cheaper off-system power.

Plaintiffs stated in their pleadings that customers in Texas were charged at least $57 million above prevailing market prices for power.  Plaintiffs seek actual, consequential and exemplary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees, and disgorgement of profits.  The plaintiffs’ experts have tendered a report calculating damages in a large range, from $153 million to $972 million in present value, under various scenarios as of the date of the report.  The Entergy defendants have tendered expert reports challenging the assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions of the plaintiffs’ expert reports.

In March 2012 the state district court found that the case met the requirements to be maintained as a class action under Texas law.  In April 2012 the court entered an order certifying the class.  The defendants appealed the order to the Texas Court of Appeals – First District and oral argument was held in May 2013. In November 2014 the Texas Court of Appeals - First District reversed the state district court’s class certification order and dismissed the case holding that the state district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to address the issues. Plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing and a motion for rehearing en banc. 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. In July 2015 the Court of Appeals issued a new opinion again finding that the plaintiffs’ claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC and, therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The Court of Appeals ordered that the state district court dismiss all claims against the Entergy defendants. In September 2015 plaintiffs filed a petition for review at the Supreme Court of Texas. At the request of the Court, the Entergy defendants filed a response in December 2015. In January 2016 the Supreme Court of Texas issued an order requiring the parties to file briefs on the merits.

Entergy Texas [Member]

Rate And Regulatory Matters

RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities

Regulatory assets represent probable future revenues associated with costs that Entergy expects to recover from customers through the regulatory ratemaking process under which the Utility business operates. Regulatory liabilities represent probable future reductions in revenues associated with amounts that Entergy expects to benefit customers through the regulatory ratemaking process under which the Utility business operates. In addition to the regulatory assets and liabilities that are specifically disclosed on the face of the balance sheets, the tables below provide detail of “Other regulatory assets” and “Other regulatory liabilities” that are included on Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and 2014:

Other Regulatory Assets

Entergy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$2,574.9		$2,798.8
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 – Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators) (Note 5 - Entergy Arkansas Securitization Bonds)	717.8		736.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	589.1		513.8
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	273.3		245.1
Little Gypsy costs – recovered through securitization (Note 5 – Entergy Louisiana Securitization Bonds - Little Gypsy)	121.1		139.2
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	66.7		76.2
Transition to competition costs - recovered over a 15-year period through February 2021	57.4		66.2
New nuclear generation development costs (Note 2 - New Nuclear Generation Development Costs) (c)	51.1		58.4
MISO implementation costs - recovery through retail rate riders (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	49.4		69.6
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined by retail regulators	32.2		54.7
Human capital management costs - recovery through retail rate mechanisms (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	28.3		42.3
Other	143.5		168.1
Entergy Total		$4,704.8		$4,968.6

Entergy Arkansas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$766.5		$838.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	288.0		254.8
Storm damage costs - recovered either through securitization or retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators) (Note 5 - Entergy Arkansas Securitization Bonds)	97.2		125.6
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	85.7		59.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	23.0		26.2
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	18.1		23.3
MISO implementation costs - recovery through retail rates through 2018 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (c)	17.5		25.1
Human capital management costs - recovery through retail rates through June 2017 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (c)	10.4		17.3
Lake Catherine 4 reliability and sustainability cost deferral - recovery expected through retail rates (c)	10.4		2.4
Incremental ice storm costs - recovered through 2032	8.4		9.0
Other	8.6		10.4
Entergy Arkansas Total		$1,333.8		$1,391.3

Entergy Louisiana

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$718.7		$774.0
Asset Retirement Obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	180.8		167.5
Little Gypsy costs – recovered through securitization (Note 5 – Entergy Louisiana Securitization Bonds - Little Gypsy)	119.2		139.2
New nuclear generation development costs - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2014 through November 2022 (Note 2 - New Nuclear Generation Development Costs) (c)	50.4		58.4
MISO implementation costs - recovery through the MISO cost recovery mechanism beginning December 2014 through November 2017 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	26.6		37.1
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	19.2		21.1
Human capital management costs - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2014 through November 2017 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	17.6		25.0
River Bend AFUDC - recovered through August 2025 (Note 1 – River Bend AFUDC)	16.7		18.6
Business combination external costs deferral - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2015 through November 2025 (c)	16.1		—
MISO integration deferral - recovery through the MISO cost recovery mechanism beginning December 2014 through November 2017	14.5		23.3
Gas hedging costs - recovered through fuel rates (Note 16 - Derivatives)	7.0		15.8
Spindletop gas storage facility - recovery period through August 2016 (a) (Note 2 - System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings)	1.1		26.2
Other	30.0		34.4
Entergy Louisiana Total		$1,217.9		$1,340.6

Entergy Mississippi

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$216.1		$224.3
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	77.5		76.3
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	7.6		27.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	7.1		8.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	6.7		6.3
Baxter Wilson outage costs - recovered through retail rates over two years beginning February 2015 (Note 8 - Baxter Wilson Plant Event)	3.2		6.0
MISO implementation costs - recovery through retail rate riders (Note 2 – Retail Rate Proceedings)	2.7		4.0
Other	7.8		12.6
Entergy Mississippi Total		$328.7		$364.7

Entergy New Orleans

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through retail rates and securitization (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators)		$104.0		$18.5
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)	103.7		115.8
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	29.4		35.2
Michoud plant maintenance – recovered over a 7-year period through September 2018	5.2		7.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	4.0		3.8
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined monthly or annually	3.1		0.4
Rate case costs - recovered through retail rates (c)	3.2		3.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	1.6		1.8
Other	11.1		9.2
Entergy New Orleans Total		$265.3		$194.9

Entergy Texas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators)		$516.2		$591.7
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)	193.6		217.0
Transition to competition costs - recovered over a 15-year period through February 2021	57.4		66.2
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	25.8		18.9
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	9.4		10.5
Rate case costs -recovered through retail rates (c)	3.8		8.4
Other	6.7		9.4
Entergy Texas Total		$812.9		$922.1

System Energy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans and Other Postretirement Benefits) (b)		$178.0		$191.0
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (b)	108.6		80.4
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	54.8		55.7
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	6.4		8.5
System Energy Total		$347.8		$335.6

(a) The jurisdictional split order assigned the regulatory asset to Entergy Texas.  The regulatory asset, however, is being recovered and amortized at Entergy Louisiana.  As a result, a billing occurs monthly over the same term as the recovery and receipts will be submitted to Entergy Texas.  Entergy Texas has recorded a receivable from Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana has recorded a corresponding payable.

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

(c) Does not earn a return on investment.

Other Regulatory Liabilities

Entergy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)		$611.7		$656.7
Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8)	222.6		242.8
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation (Note 2)	156.0		156.0
Business combination guaranteed customer benefits - returned to customers through retail rates and fuel rates beginning December 2015 through November 2024 (Note 2 - Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination)	105.2		—
Removal costs - returned to customers through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)	68.3		82.7
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback - (Note 10 - Sale and Leaseback Transactions)	67.9		79.5
Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - amortized and credited through the UPSA	46.4		53.6
Entergy Arkansas’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and FERC	44.4		44.4
Waterford 3 replacement steam generator provision (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	31.7		—
Asset retirement obligation - will be returned to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)	28.2		27.7
Other	32.5		40.2
Entergy Total		$1,414.9		$1,383.6

Entergy Arkansas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)		$236.1		$254.0
Other	6.8		—
Entergy Arkansas Total		$242.9		$254.0

Entergy Louisiana

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8)		$222.6		$242.8
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)	196.9		209.1
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation (Note 2)	156.0		156.0
Business combination guaranteed customer benefits - returned to customers through retail rates and fuel rates beginning December 2015 through November 2024 (Note 2 - Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination)	105.2		—
Removal costs - returned to customers through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)	68.3		82.6
Waterford 3 replacement steam generator provision (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	31.7		—
Asset Retirement Obligation - will be returned to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)	28.2		27.7
Other	9.7		4.2
Entergy Louisiana Total		$818.6		$722.4

Entergy Texas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Transition to competition costs - returned to customers through rate riders when rates are redetermined periodically		$6.4		$5.1
Entergy Texas Total		$6.4		$5.1

System Energy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)		$178.7		$193.6
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback - (Note 10 - Sale and Leaseback Transactions)	67.9		79.5
Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - amortized and credited through the UPSA	46.4		53.6
Entergy Arkansas’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and FERC	44.4		44.4
System Energy Total		$337.4		$371.1

(a) Offset by related asset.

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas are allowed to recover fuel and purchased power costs through fuel mechanisms included in electric and gas rates that are recorded as fuel cost recovery revenues.  The difference between revenues collected and the current fuel and purchased power costs is generally recorded as “Deferred fuel costs” on the Utility operating companies’ financial statements.  The table below shows the amount of deferred fuel costs as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 that Entergy expects to recover (or return to customers) through fuel mechanisms, subject to subsequent regulatory review.

	2015			2014
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas (a)		$57.8			$209.2
Entergy Louisiana (b)		$102.9			$107.1
Entergy Mississippi		($107.8	)		($2.2	)
Entergy New Orleans (b)		($24.9	)		($25.1	)
Entergy Texas		($25.1	)		$11.9

(a) 2015 and 2014 include respectively $66.7 million and $65.9 million for Entergy Arkansas of fuel, purchased power, and capacity costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

(b) 2015 and 2014 include $168.1 million for Entergy Louisiana and $4.1 million for Entergy New Orleans of fuel, purchased power, and capacity costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

Entergy Arkansas

Production Cost Allocation Rider

The APSC approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas as a result of the System Agreement proceedings, which are discussed in the “System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings” section below.  These costs cause an increase in Entergy Arkansas’s deferred fuel cost balance because Entergy Arkansas pays the costs over seven months but collects them from customers over twelve months.

In May 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider to recover the $3 million unrecovered retail balance as of December 31, 2013 and the $67.8 million System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment made in May 2014 as a result of the compliance filing pursuant to the FERC’s February 2014 orders related to the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. In June 2014 the APSC suspended the annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider and scheduled a hearing in September 2014. Upon a joint motion of the parties, the APSC canceled the September 2014 hearing and in January 2015 the APSC issued an order approving Entergy Arkansas’s request for recovery of the $3 million under-recovered amount based on the true-up of the production cost allocation rider and the $67.8 million May 2014 System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment subject to refund with interest, with recovery of these payments concluding with the last billing cycle in December 2015. The APSC also found that Entergy Arkansas is entitled to carrying charges pursuant to the current terms of the production cost allocation rider. Entergy Arkansas made its compliance filing pursuant to the order in January 2015 and the APSC issued its approval order, also in January 2015. The redetermined rate went into effect the first billing cycle of February 2015.

In May 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider, which included a $38 million payment made by Entergy Arkansas as a result of the FERC’s February 2014 order related to the comprehensive bandwidth recalculation for calendar year 2006, 2007, and 2008 production costs. The redetermined rate for the 2015 production cost allocation rider update was added to the redetermined rate from the 2014 production cost allocation rider update and the combined rate was effective with the first billing cycle of July 2015. This combined rate was effective through December 2015. The collection of the remainder of the redetermined rate for the 2015 production cost allocation rider update will continue through June 2016.

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

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

In October 2005 the APSC initiated an investigation into Entergy Arkansas’s interim energy cost recovery rate.  The investigation focused on Entergy Arkansas’s 1) gas contracting, portfolio, and hedging practices; 2) wholesale purchases during the period; 3) management of the coal inventory at its coal generation plants; and 4) response to the contractual failure of the railroads to provide coal deliveries.  In March 2006 the APSC extended its investigation to cover the costs included in Entergy Arkansas’s March 2006 annual energy cost rate filing, and a hearing was held in the APSC investigation in October 2006.

In January 2007 the APSC issued an order in its review of the energy cost rate.  The APSC found that Entergy Arkansas failed to maintain an adequate coal inventory level going into the summer of 2005 and that Entergy Arkansas should be responsible for any incremental energy costs that resulted from two outages caused by employee and contractor error.  The coal plant generation curtailments were caused by railroad delivery problems and Entergy Arkansas resolved litigation with the railroad regarding the delivery problems.  The APSC staff was directed to perform an analysis with Entergy Arkansas’s assistance to determine the additional fuel and purchased energy costs associated with these findings and file the analysis within sixty days of the order.  After a final determination of the costs is made by the APSC, Entergy Arkansas will be directed to refund that amount with interest to its customers as a credit on the energy cost recovery rider.  Entergy Arkansas requested rehearing of the order.

In February 2010 the APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s request for rehearing, and held a hearing in September 2010 to determine the amount of damages, if any, that should be assessed against Entergy Arkansas.  A decision is pending.  Entergy Arkansas expects the amount of damages, if any, to have an immaterial effect on its results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

The APSC also established a separate docket to consider the resolved railroad litigation, and in February 2010 it established a procedural schedule that concluded with testimony through September 2010.  The testimony was filed, and the APSC will decide the case based on the record in the proceeding.

In January 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion with the APSC relating to its redetermination of its energy cost rate that was filed in March 2014. In that motion, Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to exclude $65.9 million of deferred fuel and purchased energy costs incurred in 2013 from the redetermination of its 2014 energy cost rate. The $65.9 million is an estimate of the incremental fuel and replacement energy costs that Entergy Arkansas incurred as a result of the ANO stator incident. Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to retain that amount in its deferred fuel balance, with recovery to be reviewed in a later period after more information is available regarding various claims associated with the ANO stator incident. The APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’s request in February 2014. See the “ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews” section in Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of the ANO stator incident.

Entergy Louisiana

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

In April 2010 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009.  The LPSC staff issued its audit report in January 2013.  The LPSC staff recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $1.9 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $1 million from Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates.  The recommended refund was made by Entergy Louisiana in May 2013 in the form of a credit to customers through its fuel adjustment clause filing. Two parties intervened in the proceeding. A procedural schedule was established for the identification of issues by the intervenors and for Entergy Louisiana to submit comments regarding the LPSC Staff report and any issues raised by intervenors. One intervenor is seeking further proceedings regarding certain issues it raised in its comments on the LPSC Staff report. Entergy Louisiana has filed responses to both the LPSC Staff report and the issues raised by the intervenor. As required by the procedural schedule, a joint status report was submitted in October 2013 by the parties. A status conference was held in December 2013. Discovery has ceased and the parties are awaiting issuance of the audit report of the LPSC staff, but a procedural schedule has not been established.

In December 2011 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate another proceeding to audit the fuel adjustment clause filings of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and its affiliates.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period 2005 through 2009.  Discovery has ceased and the parties are awaiting issuance of the audit report of the LPSC staff, but a procedural schedule has not been established.

In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015.

In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015.

Entergy Mississippi

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

Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel balance of $60.4 million as of March 31, 2014. In May 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed for an interim adjustment under its energy cost recovery rider. The interim adjustment proposed a net energy cost factor designed to collect over a six-month period the under-recovered deferred fuel balance as of March 31, 2014 and also reflected a natural gas price of $4.50 per MMBtu. In May 2014, Entergy Mississippi and the Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation in which Entergy Mississippi agreed to a revised net energy cost factor that reflected the proposed interim adjustment with a reduction in costs recovered through the energy cost recovery rider associated with the suspension of the DOE nuclear waste storage fee. In June 2014 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation and allowed Entergy Mississippi’s interim adjustment. In November 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider.  Due to lower gas prices and a lower deferred fuel balance, the redetermined annual factor was a decrease from the revised interim net energy cost factor.  In January 2015 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective January 30, 2015.

Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel over-recovery balance of $58.3 million as of May 31, 2015, along with an under-recovery balance of $12.3 million under the power management rider. Pursuant to those tariffs, in July 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed for interim adjustments under both the energy cost recovery rider and the power management rider to flow through to customers the approximately $46 million net over-recovery over a six-month period. In August 2015, the MPSC approved the interim adjustments effective with September 2015 bills. In November 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included a projected over-recovery balance of $48 million projected through January 31, 2016. In January 2016 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective February 1, 2016. The MPSC further ordered, however, that due to the significant change in natural gas price forecasts since Entergy Mississippi’s filing in November 2015 Entergy Mississippi shall file a revised fuel factor with the MPSC no later than February 1, 2016. In February 2016, Entergy Mississippi submitted a revised fuel factor reflecting a natural gas price of $2.45 per MMBtu.

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 Attorney General appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the denial of the motion to remand. In July 2015 the Fifth Circuit issued an order denying the appeal, and the Attorney General subsequently filed a petition for rehearing of the request for interlocutory appeal, which was also denied. The case remains pending in federal district court, awaiting a ruling on the Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. In December 2015 the District Court ordered that the parties submit to the court undisputed and disputed facts that are material to the Entergy defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, as well as supplemental briefs regarding the same. Those filings were made in January 2016.

Entergy New Orleans

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

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

Entergy Texas

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

In October 2012, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to refund approximately $78 million, including interest, of fuel cost recovery over-collections through September 2012.  Entergy Texas requested that the refund be implemented over a six-month period effective with the January 2013 billing month.  Entergy Texas and the parties to the proceeding reached an agreement that Entergy Texas would refund $84 million, including interest and additional over-recoveries through October 2012, to most customers over a three-month period beginning January 2013.  The PUCT approved the stipulation in January 2013. Entergy Texas completed this refund to customers in March 2013.

In July 2012, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application to credit its customers approximately $37.5 million, including interest, resulting from the FERC’s October 2011 order in the System Agreement rough production cost equalization proceeding which is discussed below in “System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings.”  In September 2012 the parties submitted a stipulation resolving the proceeding.  The stipulation provided that most Entergy Texas customers would be credited over a four-month period beginning October 2012.  The credits were initiated with the October 2012 billing month on an interim basis, and the PUCT subsequently approved the stipulation, also in October 2012.

In August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking PUCT approval to implement an interim fuel refund of approximately $24.6 million for over-collected fuel costs incurred during the months of November 2012 through April 2014. This refund resulted from (i) applying $48.6 million in bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received in May 2014 related to the June - December 2005 period to Entergy Texas’s $8.7 million under-recovered fuel balance as of April 30, 2014 and (ii) netting that fuel balance against the $15.3 million bandwidth remedy paymentthat Entergy Texas made related to calendar year 2013 production costs. Also in August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed motion for interim rates to implement these refunds for most customers over a two-month period commencing with September 2014. The PUCT issued its order approving the interim relief in August 2014 and Entergy Texas completed the refunds in October 2014.Parties intervened in this matter, and all parties agreed that the proceeding should be bifurcated such that the proposed interim refund would become final in a separate proceeding, which refund was approved by the PUCT in March 2015.   In July 2015 certain parties filed briefs in the open proceeding asserting that Entergy Texas should refund to retail customers an additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs.  In October 2015 an ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments be refunded to retail customers. In January 2016 the PUCT issued its order affirming the ALJ’s recommendation, and Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the PUCT’s decision, which the PUCT denied.

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

Retail Rate Proceedings

Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas)

Retail Rates

2013 Base Rate Filing

In March 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing assumed Entergy Arkansas’s transition to MISO in December 2013, and requested a rate increase of $174 million, including $49 million of revenue being transferred from collection in riders to base rates. The filing also proposed a new transmission rider and a capacity cost recovery rider. The filing requested a 10.4% return on common equity. In September 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed testimony reflecting an updated rate increase request of $145 million, with no change to its requested return on common equity of 10.4%. Hearings in the proceeding began in October 2013, and in December 2013 the APSC issued an order. The order authorized a base rate increase of $81 million and included an authorized return on common equity of 9.3%. The order allowed Entergy Arkansas to amortize its human capital management costs over a three-and-a-half year period, but also ordered Entergy Arkansas to file a detailed report of the Arkansas-specific costs, savings and final payroll changes upon conclusion of the human capital management strategic imperative. The detailed report was subsequently filed in February 2015. The substance of the report was addressed in Entergy Arkansas’s 2015 base rate filing. New rates under the January 2014 order were implemented in the first billing cycle of March 2014 and were effective as of January 2014. Additionally, in January 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition for rehearing or clarification of several aspects of the APSC’s order, including the 9.3% authorized return on common equity. In February 2014 the APSC granted Entergy Arkansas’s petition for the purpose of considering the additional evidence identified by Entergy Arkansas. In August 2014 the APSC issued an order amending certain aspects of the original order, including providing for a 9.5% authorized return on common equity. Pursuant to the August 2014 order, revised rates were effective for all bills rendered after December 31, 2013 and were implemented in the first billing cycle of October 2014.

2015 Base Rate Filing

In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notified the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a forward test year formula rate plan pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requested a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requested a 10.2% return on common equity. In May 2015 the APSC issued an order suspending the proposed rates and tariffs filed by Entergy Arkansas and establishing a procedural schedule to complete its investigation of Entergy Arkansas’s application. In September 2015, APSC staff and intervenors filed direct testimony, with the APSC staff recommending a revenue requirement of $217.9 million and a 9.65% return on common equity. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in October 2015. In December 2015, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and certain of the intervenors in the rate case filed with the APSC a joint motion for approval of a settlement of the case that proposes a retail rate increase of approximately $225 million with a net increase in revenue of approximately $133 million; an authorized return on common equity of 9.75%; and a formula rate plan tariff that provides a 50 basis point band around the 9.75% allowed return on common equity.

A hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that would reduce the retail rate increase proposed in the settlement by $5 million. The parties were directed to inform the APSC by filing no later than February 26, 2016 whether they accept the APSC’s proposed settlement agreement modification or request a full hearing on the issues. Entergy Arkansas plans to make its first formula rate plan filing in July 2016 for rates effective with the first billing cycle of January 2017.

A significant portion of the rate increase is related to Entergy Arkansas’s acquisition of Union Power Station Power Block 2 for an expected base purchase price of $237 million, subject to adjustment. The acquisition is expected to be completed promptly following the receipt of FERC approval. If the acquisition closes on or before March 24, 2016, recovery of the costs to acquire Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station will be through Entergy Arkansas’s new base rates that will commence with the first billing cycle of April 2016. If the transaction closes after that date, the parties have agreed to concurrent cost recovery through Entergy Arkansas’s capacity acquisition rider.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)

Retail Rates - Electric

2013 Rate Cases

In connection with its decision to extend the formula rate plan to the 2011 test year, the LPSC required that a base rate case be filed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, and the required filing was made in February 2013. The filing anticipated Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s integration into MISO. In the filing Entergy Gulf States Louisiana requested, among other relief:

• authorization to increase the revenue it collects from customers by approximately $24 million;

• an authorized return on common equity of 10.4%;

• authorization to increase depreciation rates embedded in the proposed revenue requirement; and,

• authorization to implement a three-year formula rate plan with a midpoint return on common equity of 10.4%, plus or minus 75 basis points (the deadband), that would provide a means for the annual re-setting of rates (commencing with calendar year 2013 as its first test year), that would include a mechanism to recover incremental transmission revenue requirement on the basis of a forward-looking test year as compared to the initial base year of 2014 with an annual true-up, that would retain the primary aspects of the prior formula rate plan, including a 60% to customers/40% to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana sharing mechanism for earnings outside the deadband, and a capacity rider mechanism that would permit recovery of incremental capacity additions approved by the LPSC.

Following a hearing before an ALJ and the ALJ’s issuance of a Report of Proceedings, in December 2013 the LPSC approved an unopposed settlement of the proceeding. Major terms of the settlement included approval of a three-year formula rate plan (effective for test years 2014-2016) modeled after the formula rate plan in effect for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana for 2011, including the following: (1) a midpoint return on equity of 9.95% plus or minus 80 basis points, with 60/40 sharing of earnings outside of the bandwidth; (2) recovery outside of the sharing mechanism for the non-fuel MISO-related costs, additional capacity revenue requirement, extraordinary items, such as the Ninemile 6 project, and certain special recovery items; (3) three-year amortization of costs to achieve savings associated with the human capital management strategic imperative, with savings to be reflected as they are realized in subsequent years; (4) eight-year amortization of costs incurred in connection with potential development of a new nuclear unit at River Bend, without carrying costs, beginning December 2014, provided, however, that amortization of these costs shall not result in a future rate increase; (5) no change in rates related to test year 2013, except with respect to recovery of the non-fuel MISO-related costs and any changes to the additional capacity revenue requirement; and (6) no increase in rates related to test year 2014, except for those items eligible for recovery outside of the earnings sharing mechanism. Existing depreciation rates will not change. Implementation of rate changes for items recoverable outside of the earnings sharing mechanism occurred in December 2014.

Pursuant to the rate case settlement approved by the LPSC in December 2013, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted a compliance filing in May 2014 reflecting the effects of the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism revenue requirement and adjustment of the additional capacity mechanism. In November 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted an additional compliance filing updating the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism for the most recent actual data. Based on this updated filing, a net increase of $5.8 million in formula rate plan revenue to be collected over nine months was implemented in December 2014. The compliance filings are subject to LPSC review in accordance with the review process set forth in Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s formula rate plan.

In November 2011 the LPSC approved a one-year extension of Entergy Louisiana’s formula rate plan.  In May 2012, Entergy Louisiana made its formula rate plan filing with the LPSC for the 2011 test year.  The filing reflected a 9.63% earned return on common equity, which is within the earnings bandwidth and resulted in no cost of service rate change under the formula rate plan.  The filing also reflected an $18.1 million rate increase for the incremental capacity rider.  In August 2012, Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised filing that reflected an earned return on common equity of 10.38%, which is still within the earnings bandwidth, resulting in no cost of service rate change.  The revised filing also indicated that an increase of $15.9 million should be reflected in the incremental capacity rider.  The rate change was implemented, subject to refund, effective for bills rendered the first billing cycle of September 2012.  Subsequently, in December 2012, Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised evaluation report that reflected two items: 1) a $17 million reduction for the first-year capacity charges for the purchase by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana from Entergy Louisiana of one-third of Acadia Unit 2 capacity and energy, and 2) an $88 million increase for the first-year retail revenue requirement associated with the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, which was in-service in December 2012.  These rate changes were implemented, subject to refund, effective with the first billing cycle of January 2013.  In April 2013, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint report resolving the 2011 test year formula rate plan and recovery related to the Grand Gulf uprate. This report was approved by the LPSC in April 2013.

In connection with its decision to extend the formula rate plan to the 2011 test year, the LPSC required that a base rate case be filed by Entergy Louisiana, and the required filing was made on February 15, 2013. The filing anticipated Entergy Louisiana’s integration into MISO. In the filing Entergy Louisiana requested, among other relief:

• authorization to increase the revenue it collects from customers by approximately $145 million (which does not take into account a revenue offset of approximately $2 million resulting from a proposed increase for those customers taking service under the Qualifying Facility Standby Service);

• an authorized return on common equity of 10.4%;

• authorization to increase depreciation rates embedded in the proposed revenue requirement; and

• authorization to implement a three-year formula rate plan with a midpoint return on common equity of 10.4%, plus or minus 75 basis points (the deadband), that would provide a means for the annual re-setting of rates (commencing with calendar year 2013 as its first test year), that would include a mechanism to recover incremental transmission revenue requirement on the basis of a forward-looking test year as compared to the initial base year of 2014 with an annual true-up, that would retain the primary aspects of the prior formula rate plan, including a 60% to customers/40% to Entergy Louisiana sharing mechanism for earnings outside the deadband, and a capacity rider mechanism that would permit recovery of incremental capacity additions approved by the LPSC.

Following a hearing before an ALJ and the ALJ’s issuance of a Report of Proceedings, in December 2013 the LPSC approved an unopposed settlement of the proceeding. The settlement provided for a $10 million rate increase effective with the first billing cycle of December 2014. Major terms of the settlement included approval of a three-year formula rate plan (effective for test years 2014-2016) modeled after the formula rate plan in effect for Entergy Louisiana for 2011, including the following: (1) a midpoint return on equity of 9.95% plus or minus 80 basis points, with 60/40 sharing of earnings outside of the bandwidth; (2) recovery outside of the sharing mechanism for the non-fuel MISO-related costs, additional capacity revenue requirement, extraordinary items, such as the Ninemile 6 project, and certain special recovery items; (3) three-year amortization of costs to achieve savings associated with the human capital management strategic imperative, with savings reflected as they are realized in subsequent years; (4) eight-year amortization of costs incurred in connection with potential development of a new nuclear unit at River Bend, without carrying costs, beginning December 2014, provided, however, that amortization of these costs shall not result in a future rate increase; (5) recovery of non-fuel MISO-related costs and any changes to the additional capacity revenue requirement related to test year 2013 effective with the first billing cycle of December 2014; and (6) a cumulative $30 million cap on cost of service increases over the three-year formula rate plan cycle, except for those items outside of the sharing mechanism. Existing depreciation rates will not change.

Pursuant to the rate case settlement approved by the LPSC in December 2013, Entergy Louisiana submitted a compliance filing in May 2014 reflecting the effects of the $10 million agreed-upon increase in formula rate plan revenue, the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism revenue requirement, and the adjustment of the additional capacity mechanism. In November 2014, Entergy Louisiana submitted an additional compliance filing updating the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism for the most recent actual data, as well as providing for a refund and prospective reduction in rates for the true-up of the estimated revenue requirement for the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project. Based on this updated filing, a net increase of $41.6 million in formula rate plan revenue to be collected over nine months was implemented in December 2014. The compliance filings are subject to LPSC review in accordance with the review process set forth in Entergy Louisiana’s formula rate plan. Additionally, the adjustments of rates made related to the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project included in the December 2014 compliance filing are subject to final true-up following completion of the LPSC’s determination regarding the prudence of the project. LPSC staff identified five issues, of which two remain. The remaining issues pertain to Entergy Louisiana’s method of collecting the agreed-upon $10 million increase and the level of recovery of investment related to the Grand Gulf uprate. No procedural schedule has been established, however, to address these remaining issues. The final issue raised by the LPSC staff pertains to the appropriate level of refunds related to the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project. That issue will be resolved in connection with the Waterford 3 prudence review proceedings discussed below.

Waterford 3 Replacement Steam Generator Project

Following the completion of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, the LPSC undertook a prudence review in connection with a filing made by Entergy Louisiana in April 2013 with regard to the following aspects of the replacement project: 1) project management; 2) cost controls; 3) success in achieving stated objectives; 4) the costs of the replacement project; and 5) the outage length and replacement power costs. In July 2014 the LPSC Staff filed testimony recommending potential project and replacement power cost disallowances of up to $71 million, citing a need for further explanation or documentation from Entergy Louisiana.  An intervenor filed testimony recommending disallowance of $141 million of incremental project costs, claiming the steam generator fabricator was imprudent.  Entergy Louisiana provided further documentation and explanation requested by the LPSC staff. An evidentiary hearing was held in December 2014. At the hearing the parties maintained the positions reflected in pre-filed testimony. Entergy Louisiana believes that the replacement steam generator costs were prudently incurred and applicable legal principles support their recovery in rates.  Nevertheless, Entergy Louisiana recorded a write-off of $16 million of Waterford 3’s plant balance in December 2014 because of the uncertainty at the time associated with the resolution of the prudence review. In December 2015 the ALJ issued a proposed recommendation, which was subsequently finalized, concluding that Entergy Louisiana prudently managed the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, including the selection, use, and oversight of contractors, and could not reasonably have anticipated the damage to the steam generators. Nevertheless, the ALJ concluded that Entergy Louisiana was liable for the conduct of its contractor and subcontractor and, therefore, recommended a disallowance of $67 million in capital costs. Additionally, the ALJ concluded that Entergy Louisiana did not sufficiently justify the incurrence of $2 million in replacement power costs during the replacement outage. Although the ALJ’s recommendation has yet to be considered by the LPSC, after considering the progress of the proceeding in light of the ALJ recommendation, Entergy Louisiana recorded in the fourth quarter 2015 approximately $77 million in charges, including a $45 million asset write-off and a $32 million regulatory charge, to reflect that a portion of the assets associated with the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project is no longer probable of recovery. Entergy Louisiana maintains that the ALJ’s recommendation contains significant factual and legal errors.

Ninemile 6

In July 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed stipulation with the LPSC that estimated a first year revenue requirement associated with Ninemile 6 and provided a mechanism to update the revenue requirement as the in-service date approached, which was subsequently approved by the LPSC. In late-December 2014, roughly contemporaneous with the unit's placement in service, a final updated estimated revenue requirement of $26.8 million for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and $51.1 million for Entergy Louisiana was filed. The December 2014 estimate forms the basis of rates implemented effective with the first billing cycle of January 2015. In July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a compliance filing including an estimate at completion, inclusive of interconnection costs and transmission upgrades, of approximately $648 million, or $76 million less than originally estimated, along with other project details and supporting evidence, to enable the LPSC to review the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s management of the project. A hearing is scheduled in March 2016.

Union Power Station

In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed its application with the LPSC for approval of the acquisition and cost recovery of two power blocks of the Union Power Station for an expected base purchase price of approximately $237 million per power block, subject to adjustments. In September 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana agreed to settlement terms with all parties for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s purchase of the two power blocks. In October 2015 the LPSC voted unanimously to approve the uncontested settlement which finds, among other things, that acquisition of Power Blocks 3 and 4 is in the public interest and, therefore, prudent. The business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana received regulatory approval and closed in October 2015 making Entergy Louisiana the named purchaser of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station.

Business Combination

In connection with the approval of the business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana, the LPSC authorized the filing of a single, joint formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. The joint evaluation report was filed in September 2015 and reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.09%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following adjustments are required under the formula rate plan, however: a decrease in the additional capacity mechanism for Entergy Louisiana of $17.8 million; an increase in the additional capacity mechanism for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana of $4.3 million; and a reduction of $5.5 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism, to collect approximately $35.7 million on a combined-company basis. Under the order approving the business combination, following completion of the prescribed review period, rates were implemented with the first billing cycle of December 2015, subject to refund. In November 2015, the LPSC staff filed objections, corrections, and comments identifying several issues for potential rate adjustments, including: preservation of previously-raised issues; the implementation of the $10 million increase in annual formula rate plan revenue over abbreviated rate-effective period; the level of adjustment to rates for the extended power uprate at System Energy, as well as asserting a general reservation of rights for further review of adjustments related to Ninemile 6 and the Waterford 3 provision for rate refund; change to gross plant, depreciation, and net plant components of rate base; regulatory debits and credits; adjustment for business combination expenses and the implementation of certain guaranteed customer credits. See “Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination” below for further discussion of the business combination.

Retail Rates - Gas

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

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

In accordance with the settlement of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2012, in August 2014 Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted for consideration a proposal for implementation of an infrastructure rider to recover expenditures associated with strategic plant investment and relocation projects mandated by local governments. After review by the LPSC staff and inclusion of certain customer safeguards required by the LPSC staff, in December 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the LPSC staff submitted a joint settlement for implementation of an accelerated gas pipe replacement program providing for the replacement of approximately 100 miles of pipe over the next ten years, as well as relocation of certain existing pipe resulting from local government-related infrastructure projects, and for a rider to recover the investment associated with these projects. The rider allows for recovery of approximately $65 million over ten years. The rider recovery will be adjusted on a quarterly basis to include actual investment incurred for the prior quarter and is subject to the following conditions, among others: a ten-year term; application of any earnings in excess of 10.45% as an offset to the revenue requirement of the infrastructure rider; adherence to a specified spending plan, within plus or minus 20% annually; annual filings comparing actual versus planned rider spending with actual spending and explanation of variances exceeding 10%; and an annual true-up. The joint settlement was approved by the LPSC in January 2015. Implementation of the infrastructure rider commenced with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of April 2015.

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 resulted 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 was implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015.

In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2015. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 10.22%, which is within the authorized bandwidth, therefore requiring no change in rates. Absent approval of an extension by the LPSC, test year 2015 is the final year under the current gas rate stabilization plan. In February 2016, however, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the terms of the gas rate stabilization plan for an additional three-year term.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Formula Rate Plan Filings

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

In June 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed its first general rate case before the MPSC in almost 12 years.  The rate filing laid out Entergy Mississippi’s plans for improving reliability, modernizing the grid, maintaining its workforce, stabilizing rates, utilizing new technologies, and attracting new industry to its service territory.  Entergy Mississippi requested a net increase in revenue of $49 million for bills rendered during calendar year 2015, including $30 million resulting from new depreciation rates to update the estimated service life of assets.  In addition, the filing proposed, among other things: 1) realigning cost recovery of the Attala and Hinds power plant acquisitions from the power management rider to base rates; 2) including certain MISO-related revenues and expenses in the power management rider; 3) power management rider changes that reflect the changes in costs and revenues that will accompany Entergy Mississippi’s withdrawal from participation in the System Agreement; and 4) a formula rate plan forward test year to allow for known changes in expenses and revenues for the rate effective period.  Entergy Mississippi proposed maintaining the current authorized return on common equity of 10.59%. 

In October 2014, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into and filed joint stipulations that addressed the majority of issues in the proceeding. The stipulations provided for:

• an approximate $16 million net increase in revenues, which reflected an agreed upon 10.07% return on common equity;

• revision of Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan by providing Entergy Mississippi with the ability to reflect known and measurable changes to historical rate base and certain expense amounts; resolving uncertainty around and obviating the need for an additional rate filing in connection with Entergy Mississippi’s withdrawal from participation in the System Agreement; updating depreciation rates; and moving costs associated with the Attala and Hinds generating plants from the power management rider to base rates;

• recovery of non-fuel MISO-related costs through a separate rider for that purpose;

• a deferral of $6 million in other operation and maintenance expenses associated with the Baxter Wilson outage and a determination that the regulatory asset should accrue carrying costs, with amortization of the regulatory asset over two years beginning in February 2015, and a provision that the capital costs will be reflected in rate base. See Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Baxter Wilson outage; and

• consolidation of the new nuclear generation development costs proceeding with the general rate case proceeding for hearing purposes and a determination that Entergy Mississippi would not further pursue, except as noted below, recovery of the costs that were approved for deferral by the MPSC in November 2011. The stipulations state, however, that, if Entergy Mississippi decides to move forward with nuclear development in Mississippi, it can at that time re-present for consideration by the MPSC only those costs directly associated with the existing early site permit (ESP), to the extent that the costs are verifiable and prudent and the ESP is still valid and relevant to any such option pursued. See “New Nuclear Generation Development Costs - Entergy Mississippi” below for further discussion of the new nuclear generation development costs proceeding and subsequent write-off in 2014 of the regulatory asset related to those costs.

In December 2014 the MPSC issued an order accepting the stipulations in their entirety and approving the revenue adjustments and rate changes effective with February 2015 bills.

Filings with the City Council

(Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans)

In March 2013, Entergy Louisiana filed a rate case for the Algiers area, which is in New Orleans and is regulated by the City Council. Entergy Louisiana requested a rate increase of $13 million over three years, including a 10.4% return on common equity and a formula rate plan mechanism identical to its LPSC request. In January 2014 the City Council Advisors filed direct testimony recommending a rate increase of $5.56 million over three years, including an 8.13% return on common equity. In June 2014 the City Council unanimously approved a settlement that includes the following:

• a $9.3 million base rate revenue increase to be phased in on a levelized basis over four years;

• recovery of an additional $853 thousand annually through a MISO recovery rider; and

• the adoption of a four-year formula rate plan requiring the filing of annual evaluation reports in May of each year, commencing May 2015, with resulting rates being implemented in October of each year. The formula rate plan includes a midpoint target authorized return on common equity of 9.95% with a +/- 40 basis point bandwidth.

The rate increase was effective with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of July 2014. Additional compliance filings were made with the Council in October 2014 for approval of the form of certain rate riders, including among others, a Ninemile 6 non-fuel cost recovery interim rider, allowing for contemporaneous recovery of capacity costs related to the commencement of commercial operation of the Ninemile 6 generating unit and a purchased power capacity cost recovery rider. The monthly Ninemile 6 cost recovery interim rider was implemented in December 2014 to initially collect $915 thousand from Entergy Louisiana customers in the Algiers area. See “Algiers Asset Transfer ” below for discussion of the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that serve Algiers customers.

(Entergy New Orleans)

Formula Rate Plan

In April 2009 the City Council approved a three-year formula rate plan for Entergy New Orleans, with terms including an 11.1% benchmark electric return on common equity (ROE) with a +/-40 basis point bandwidth and a 10.75% benchmark gas ROE with a +/-50 basis point bandwidth.  Earnings outside the bandwidth reset to the midpoint benchmark ROE, with rates changing on a prospective basis depending on whether Entergy New Orleans was over- or under-earning.  The formula rate plan also included a recovery mechanism for City Council-approved capacity additions, plus provisions for extraordinary cost changes and force majeure events.

In May 2012, Entergy New Orleans filed its electric and gas formula rate plan evaluation reports for the 2011 test year.  Subsequent adjustments agreed upon with the City Council Advisors indicate a $4.9 million electric base revenue increase and a $0.05 million gas base revenue increase as necessary under the formula rate plan.  As part of the original filing, Entergy New Orleans also requested to increase annual funding for its storm reserve by approximately $5.7 million for five years.  On September 26, 2012, Entergy New Orleans made a filing with the City Council that implemented the $4.9 million electric formula rate plan rate increase and the $0.05 million gas formula rate plan rate increase.  The new rates were effective with the first billing cycle in October 2012.  In August 2013 the City Council unanimously approved a settlement of all issues in the formula rate plan proceeding.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Entergy New Orleans implemented an approximately $1.625 million net decrease to the electric rates that were in effect prior to the electric rate increase implemented in October 2012, with no change in gas rates.  Entergy New Orleans refunded to customers approximately $6 million over the four-month period from September 2013 through December 2013 to make the electric rate decrease effective as of the first billing cycle of October 2012.  Entergy New Orleans had previously recorded provisions for the majority of the refund to customers, but recorded an additional $1.1 million provision in second quarter 2013 as a result of the settlement. Entergy New Orleans’s formula rate plan ended with the 2011 test year and has not been extended.  

See “Algiers Asset Transfer ” below for discussion of the Algiers asset transfer. As a provision of the settlement agreement approved by the City Council in May 2015 providing for the Algiers asset transfer, it was agreed that, with limited exceptions, no action may be taken with respect to Entergy New Orleans’s base rates until rates are implemented from a base rate case that must be filed for its electric and gas operations in 2018. This provision eliminated the formula rate plan applicable to Algiers operations. The limited exceptions include continued implementation of the remaining two years of the four-year phased-in rate increase for its operations in the Algiers area and certain exceptional cost increases or decreases in its base revenue requirement. An additional provision of the settlement agreement allows for continued recovery of the revenue requirement associated with the capacity and energy from Ninemile 6 received by Entergy New Orleans under a power purchase agreement with Entergy Louisiana (Algiers PPA). The settlement authorizes Entergy New Orleans to recover the remaining revenue requirement related to the Algiers PPA through base rates charged to Algiers customers. The settlement also provided for continued implementation of the Algiers MISO recovery rider.

In addition to the Algiers PPA, Entergy New Orleans has a separate power purchase agreement with Entergy Louisiana for 20% of the capacity and energy of the Ninemile Unit 6 generating station (Ninemile PPA), which commenced operation in December 2014. Initially, recovery of the non-fuel costs associated with the Ninemile PPA was authorized through a special Ninemile 6 rider billed to only Entergy New Orleans customers outside of Algiers.

In August 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to proceed with the acquisition of Union Power Block 1, with an expected base purchase price of approximately $237 million, subject to adjustments, and seeking approval of the recovery of the associated costs. In November 2015 the City Council issued written resolutions and an order approving an agreement in principle between Entergy New Orleans and City Council advisors providing that the purchase of Union Power Block 1 and related assets by Entergy New Orleans is prudent and in the public interest. The City Council authorized expansion of the special Ninemile 6 rider, discussed above, to cover the non-fuel purchased power from Ninemile 6 as well as the revenue requirement associated with the acquisition of Union Power Block 1, upon closing of the transaction.

A 2008 rate case settlement included $3.1 million per year in electric rates to fund the Energy Smart energy efficiency programs.  In September 2009 the City Council approved the energy efficiency programs filed by Entergy New Orleans.  The rate settlement provides an incentive for Entergy New Orleans to meet or exceed energy savings targets set by the City Council and provides a mechanism for Entergy New Orleans to recover lost contribution to fixed costs associated with the energy savings generated from the energy efficiency programs. In October 2013 the City Council approved the extension of the current Energy Smart program through December 2014. The City Council approved the use of $3.5 million of rough production cost equalization funds for program costs. In addition, Entergy New Orleans will be allowed to recover its lost contribution to fixed costs and to earn an incentive for meeting program goals. In January 2015 the City Council approved extending the Energy Smart program through March 2015 and using $1.2 million of rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs for the extended period. Additionally, the City Council approved funding for the Energy Smart 2 programs from April 2015 through March 2017 using the remainder of the approximately $12.8 million of 2014 rough production cost equalization funds, and with any remaining costs being recovered through the fuel adjustment clause. This funding methodology was modified in November 2015 when the City Council directed Entergy New Orleans to use a combination of guaranteed customer savings related to a prior agreement with the City Council and rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs prior to recovering any costs through the fuel adjustment clause.

Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas)

Retail Rates

2011 Rate Case

In November 2011, Entergy Texas filed a rate case requesting a $112 million base rate increase reflecting a 10.6% return on common equity based on an adjusted June 2011 test year.  The rate case also proposed a purchased power recovery rider.  On January 12, 2012, the PUCT voted not to address the purchased power recovery rider in the current rate case, but the PUCT voted to set a baseline in the rate case proceeding that would be applicable if a purchased power capacity rider is approved in a separate proceeding.  In April 2012 the PUCT Staff filed direct testimony recommending a base rate increase of $66 million and a 9.6% return on common equity.  The PUCT Staff, however, subsequently filed a statement of position in the proceeding indicating that it was still evaluating the position it would ultimately take in the case regarding Entergy Texas’s recovery of purchased power capacity costs and Entergy Texas’s proposal to defer its MISO transition expenses.  In April 2012, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony indicating a revised request for a $105 million base rate increase.  A hearing was held in late-April through early-May 2012.

In September 2012 the PUCT issued an order approving a $28 million rate increase, effective July 2012.  The order includes a finding that “a return on common equity (ROE) of 9.80 percent will allow [Entergy Texas] a reasonable opportunity to earn a reasonable return on invested capital.”  The order also provides for increases in depreciation rates and the annual storm reserve accrual.  The order also reduced Entergy Texas’s proposed purchased power capacity costs, stating that they are not known and measurable; reduced Entergy Texas’s regulatory assets associated with Hurricane Rita; excluded from rate recovery capitalized financially-based incentive compensation; included $1.6 million of MISO transition expense in base rates, and reduced Entergy’s Texas’s fuel reconciliation recovery by $4 million because it disagreed with the line-loss factor used in the calculation.  After considering the progress of the proceeding in light of the PUCT order, Entergy Texas recorded in the third quarter 2012 an approximate $24 million charge to recognize that assets associated with Hurricane Rita, financially-based incentive compensation, and fuel recovery are no longer probable of recovery.  Entergy Texas continues to believe that it is entitled to recover these prudently incurred costs, however, and it filed a motion for rehearing regarding these and several other issues in the PUCT’s order on October 4, 2012.  Several other parties also filed motions for rehearing of the PUCT’s order.  The PUCT subsequently denied rehearing of substantive issues.  Several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. A hearing was held in July 2014. In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced above, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Briefs were filed by the appealing and responding parties in the first half of 2015. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. The appeal is currently pending.

2013 Rate Case

In September 2013, Entergy Texas filed a rate case requesting a $38.6 million base rate increase reflecting a 10.4% return on common equity based on an adjusted test year ending March 31, 2013. The rate case also proposed (1) a rough production cost equalization adjustment rider recovering Entergy Texas’s payment to Entergy New Orleans to achieve rough production cost equalization based on calendar year 2012 production costs and (2) a rate case expense rider recovering the cost of the 2013 rate case and certain costs associated with previous rate cases. The rate case filing also included a request to reconcile $0.9 billion of fuel and purchased power costs and fuel revenues covering the period July 2011 through March 2013. The fuel reconciliation also reflects special circumstances fuel cost recovery of approximately $22 million of purchased power capacity costs. In January 2014 the PUCT staff filed direct testimony recommending a retail rate reduction of $0.3 million and a 9.2% return on common equity. In March 2014, Entergy Texas filed an Agreed Motion for Interim Rates. The motion explained that the parties to this proceeding have agreed that Entergy Texas should be allowed to implement new rates reflecting an $18.5 million base rate increase, effective for usage on and after April 1, 2014, as well as recovery of charges for rough production cost equalization and rate case expenses. In March 2014 the State Office of Administrative Hearings, the body assigned to hear the case, approved the motion. In April 2014, Entergy Texas filed a unanimous stipulation in this case. Among other things, the stipulation provides for an $18.5 million base rate increase, provides for recovery over three years of the calendar year 2012 rough production cost equalization charges and rate case expenses, and states a 9.8% return on common equity. In addition, the stipulation finalizes the fuel and purchased power reconciliation covering the period July 2011 through March 2013, with the parties stipulating an immaterial fuel disallowance. No special circumstances recovery of purchased power capacity costs was allowed. In April 2014 the State Office of Administrative Hearings remanded the case back to the PUCT for final processing. In May 2014 the PUCT approved the stipulation. No motions for rehearing were filed during the statutory rehearing period.

2015 Rate Case

In June 2015, Entergy Texas filed a rate case that included pro forma adjustments to reflect the proposed acquisition of Union Power Station Power Block 1, which is one of four units that comprise the Union Power Station near El Dorado, Arkansas. Previously in 2015 Entergy Texas made a filing with the PUCT requesting that it grant a certificate of convenience and necessity for the Union acquisition. In July 2015 the PUCT requested briefing on legal and policy issues related to, among other things, the propriety of rate recovery for the Union Power transaction given the uncertainty of the actual closing date of the transaction and the commencement of the rate year, as well as Entergy Texas’s requirement for acceptable rate treatment as a condition to closing the transaction. Also in July 2015, in connection with the requested briefing, the PUCT staff and certain parties filed briefs concluding that Entergy Texas should not be permitted recovery for the Union Power Station purchase in the rate case. Based on the opposition to the acquisition of the power block, Entergy Texas determined it was appropriate to seek to dismiss the certificate of convenience and necessity filing and withdraw the rate case. In July 2015, Entergy Texas filed its notice of withdrawal of its base rate case and the ALJs in the case dismissed the case from the dockets of the State Office of Administrative Hearings and the PUCT. In the third quarter 2015, Entergy Texas wrote off $4.7 million in rate case expenses and acquisition costs related to the proposed Union Power Station acquisition.

Other Filings

In September 2014, Entergy Texas filed for a distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider based on a law that was passed in 2011 allowing for the recovery of increases in capital costs associated with distribution plant. Entergy Texas requested collection of approximately $7 million annually from retail customers. The parties reached a unanimous settlement authorizing recovery of $3.6 million annually commencing with usage on and after January 1, 2015. A State Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ issued an order in December 2014 authorizing this recovery on an interim basis and remanded the case to the PUCT. In February 2015 the PUCT entered a final order, making the settlement final and the interim rates permanent. In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed to amend its distribution cost recovery factor rider. Entergy Texas requested an increase in recovery under the rider of $6.5 million, for a total collection of $10.1 million annually from retail customers. In October 2015 intervenors and PUCT staff filed testimony opposing, in part, Entergy Texas’s request. In November 2015 Entergy Texas and the parties filed an unopposed settlement agreement and supporting documents. The settlement established an annual revenue requirement of $8.65 million for the amended DCRF rider, with the resulting rates effective for usage on and after January 1, 2016. The PUCT approved the settlement agreement in February 2016.

In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony was filed in November 2015, with the PUCT staff and other parties proposing various disallowances that would reduce the requested increase. The largest remaining single disallowance is $3.4 million which would impose a load growth adjustment on Entergy Texas’s TCRF rider. A hearing on the merits was held in December 2015. A proposal for decision from the ALJ is expected in first quarter 2016.

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination

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 application, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana identified potential benefits, including enhanced economic and customer diversity, enhanced geographic and supply diversity, and greater administrative efficiency. In the initial proceedings with the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana estimated that the business combination could produce up to $128 million in measurable customer benefits during the first ten years following the transaction’s close including proposed guaranteed customer credits of $97 million in the first nine years.  In April 2015 the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony in the LPSC business combination proceeding. The testimony recommended an extensive set of conditions that would be required in order to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The LPSC staff’s primary concern appeared to be potential shifting in fuel costs between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. In May 2015, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony. After the testimony was filed with the LPSC, the parties engaged in settlement discussions that ultimately led to the execution of an uncontested stipulated settlement (“stipulated settlement”), which was filed with the LPSC in July 2015. Through the stipulated settlement, the parties agreed to terms upon which to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The stipulated settlement, which was either joined, or unopposed, by all parties to the LPSC proceeding, represents a compromise of stakeholder positions and was the result of an extensive period of analysis, discovery, and negotiation. The stipulated settlement provides $107 million in guaranteed customer benefits during the first nine years following the transaction’s close. Additionally, the combined company will honor the 2013 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana rate case settlements, including the commitments that (1) there will be no rate increase for legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers for the 2014 test year, and (2) through the 2016 test year formula rate plan, Entergy Louisiana (as a combined entity) will not raise rates by more than $30 million, net of the $10 million rate increase included in the Entergy Louisiana legacy formula rate plan. The stipulated settlement also describes the process for implementing a fuel-tracking mechanism that is designed to address potential effects arising from the shifting of fuel costs between legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers as a result of the combination of those companies’ fuel adjustment clauses. Specifically, the fuel tracker would reallocate such cost shifts as between legacy customers of the companies on an after-the-fact basis, and the calculation of the fuel tracker will be submitted annually in a compliance filing. The stipulated settlement also provides that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana are permitted to defer certain external costs that were incurred to achieve the business combination’s customer benefits. The deferred amount, which shall not exceed $25 million, will be subject to a prudence review and amortized over a 10-year period. In 2015 deferrals of $16 million for these external costs were recorded. A hearing on the stipulated settlement in the LPSC proceeding was held in July 2015. In August 2015 the LPSC approved the business combination.

In April 2015 the FERC approved applications requesting authorization for the business combination. In August 2015 the NRC approved the applications for the River Bend and Waterford 3 license transfers as part of the steps to complete the business combination.

On October 1, 2015, the businesses formerly conducted by Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana were combined into a single public utility. With the completion of the business combination, Entergy Louisiana holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed the liabilities, of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The combination was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control. The effect of the business combination has been retrospectively applied to Entergy Louisiana's financial statements that are presented in this report. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the customer credits resulting from the business combination.

Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans)

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 supported the provision of service to Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers assets transfer. In May 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement authorizing the Algiers assets transfer and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in May 2015. On September 1, 2015, Entergy Louisiana transferred its Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans for a purchase price of approximately $85 million, subject to closing adjustments. Entergy New Orleans paid Entergy Louisiana $59.6 million, including final true-ups, from available cash and issued a note payable to Entergy Louisiana in the amount of $25.5 million. See Note 1 to the financial statements for a discussion of the accounting for the Algiers asset transfer and the basis of presentation for the Entergy New Orleans’s financial statements presented in this report.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

The Utility operating companies historically have engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which is a rate schedule that has been approved by the FERC.  Certain of the Utility operating companies’ retail regulators and other parties are pursuing litigation involving the System Agreement at the FERC.  The proceedings include challenges to the allocation of costs as defined by the System Agreement and allegations of imprudence by the Utility operating companies in their execution of their obligations under the System Agreement.

In June 2005 the FERC issued a decision in System Agreement litigation that had been commenced by the LPSC, and essentially affirmed its decision in a December 2005 order on rehearing.  The FERC decision concluded, among other things, that:

• The System Agreement no longer roughly equalizes total production costs among the Utility operating companies.

• In order to reach rough production cost equalization, the FERC imposed a bandwidth remedy by which each company’s total annual production costs will have to be within +/- 11% of Entergy System average total annual production costs.

• In calculating the production costs for this purpose under the FERC’s order, output from the Vidalia hydroelectric power plant will not reflect the actual Vidalia price for the year but is priced at that year’s average price paid by Entergy Louisiana for the exchange of electric energy under Service Schedule MSS-3 of the System Agreement, thereby reducing the amount of Vidalia costs reflected in the comparison of the Utility operating companies’ total production costs.

• The remedy ordered by FERC in 2005 required no refunds and became effective based on calendar year 2006 production costs and the first reallocation payments were made in 2007.

The FERC’s decision reallocates total production costs of the Utility operating companies whose relative total production costs expressed as a percentage of Entergy System average production costs are outside an upper or lower bandwidth.  Under the current circumstances, this will be accomplished by payments from Utility operating companies whose production costs are more than 11% below Entergy System average production costs to Utility operating companies whose production costs are more than the Entergy System average production cost, with payments going first to those Utility operating companies whose total production costs are farthest above the Entergy System average.

The financial consequences of the FERC’s decision are determined by the total production cost of each Utility operating company, which are affected by the mix of solid fuel and gas-fired generation available to each company and the costs of natural gas and purchased power.  Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Texas, and Entergy Mississippi are more dependent upon gas-fired generation sources than Entergy Arkansas or Entergy New Orleans.  Of these, Entergy Arkansas is the least dependent upon gas-fired generation sources.  Therefore, increases in natural gas prices generally increased the amount by which Entergy Arkansas’s total production costs were below the Entergy System average production costs.

The LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers appealed the FERC’s December 2005 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  Entergy and the City of New Orleans intervened in the various appeals.  The D.C. Circuit issued its decision in April 2008.  The D.C. Circuit concluded that the FERC’s orders had failed to adequately explain both its conclusion that it was prohibited from ordering refunds for the 20-month period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003 and its determination to implement the bandwidth remedy commencing on January 1, 2006, rather than June 1, 2005.  The D.C. Circuit remanded the case to the FERC for further proceedings on these issues.

In October 2011, the FERC issued an order addressing the D.C. Circuit remand on these two issues.  On the first issue, the FERC concluded that it did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-month period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003.  Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, which is discussed in a separate section below, the FERC concluded that the refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in that proceeding.  On the second issue, the FERC reversed its prior decision and ordered that the prospective bandwidth remedy begin on June 1, 2005 (the date of its initial order in the proceeding) rather than January 1, 2006, as it had previously ordered.  Pursuant to the October 2011 order, Entergy was required to calculate the additional bandwidth payments for the period June - December 2005 utilizing the bandwidth formula tariff prescribed by the FERC that was filed in a December 2006 compliance filing and accepted by the FERC in an April 2007 order.  As is the case with bandwidth remedy payments, these payments and receipts will ultimately be paid by Utility operating company customers to other Utility operating company customers. 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 an 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. In October 2015 the FERC issued three orders related to the commencement of the remedy on June 1, 2005 and the inclusion of interest on the amount for the period June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. Specifically, the FERC rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of its decision to include interest on the amount for the seven-month period. The FERC also rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of the order rejecting the compliance filing with regard to the issue of interest. Finally, the FERC set for hearing and settlement procedures the 2014 compliance filing that included the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. In setting the compliance filing for hearing, the FERC rejected the APSC’s protest that Entergy Arkansas should not be subject to the filing because Entergy Arkansas would be making the payments during a period following its exit from the System Agreement. The hearing on the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 is scheduled to occur in July 2016.

In December 2011, Entergy filed with the FERC its compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s October 2011 order.  The filing shows the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$156
Entergy Louisiana	($75)
Entergy Mississippi	($33)
Entergy New Orleans	($5)
Entergy Texas	($43)

Entergy Arkansas made its payment in January 2012.  In February 2012, Entergy Arkansas filed for an interim adjustment to its production cost allocation rider requesting that the $156 million payment be collected from customers over the 22-month period from March 2012 through December 2013.  In March 2012 the APSC issued an order stating that the payment can be recovered from retail customers through the production cost allocation rider, subject to refund.  The LPSC and the APSC have requested rehearing of the FERC’s October 2011 order.  In December 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for a writ of mandamus at the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In its petition, the LPSC requested that the D.C. Circuit issue an order compelling the FERC to issue a final order on pending rehearing requests. In January 2014 the D.C. Circuit denied the LPSC’s petition. The APSC, the LPSC, the PUCT, and other parties intervened in the December 2011 compliance filing proceeding, and the APSC and the LPSC also filed protests.

In February 2014 the FERC issued a rehearing order addressing its October 2011 order. The FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing on the issues of whether the bandwidth remedy should be made effective earlier than June 1, 2005, and whether refunds should be ordered for the 20-month refund effective period. The FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request on the issue of interest on the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period, requiring that interest be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date those bandwidth payments/receipts are made. Also in February 2014 the FERC issued an order rejecting the December 2011 compliance filing that calculated the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. The FERC order required a new compliance filing that calculates the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period based on monthly data for the seven individual months including interest pursuant to the February 2014 rehearing order. Entergy has sought rehearing of the February 2014 orders with respect to the FERC’s determinations regarding interest. In April 2014 the LPSC filed a petition for review of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The appeal is pending.

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

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$68
Entergy Louisiana	($10)
Entergy Mississippi	($11)
Entergy New Orleans	$2
Entergy Texas	($49)

These payments were made in May 2014. The LPSC, City Council, and APSC have filed protests.

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

Each May since 2007 Entergy has filed with the FERC the rates to implement the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  These filings show the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies are necessary to achieve rough production cost equalization as defined by the FERC’s orders:

	Payments (Receipts)
	2007			2008			2009			2010			2011			2012			2013			2014
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas		$252			$252			$390			$41			$77			$41			$—			$—
Entergy Louisiana		($211	)		($160	)		($247	)		($22	)		($12	)		($41	)		$—			$—
Entergy Mississippi		($41	)		($20	)		($24	)		($19	)		($40	)		$—			$—			$—
Entergy New Orleans		$—			($7	)		$—			$—			($25	)		$—			($15	)		($15	)
Entergy Texas		($30	)		($65	)		($119	)		$—			$—			$—			$15			$15

The Utility operating companies record, as necessary, accounts payable or accounts receivable to reflect the rough production cost equalization payments and receipts required to implement the FERC’s remedy.  When accounts payable are recorded, a corresponding regulatory asset is recorded for the right to collect the payments from customers. When accounts receivable are recorded, a corresponding regulatory liability is recorded for the obligations to pass the receipts on to customers.  As discussed below, no payments and receipts were required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Entergy Arkansas ceased participating in the System Agreement on December 18, 2013 and was not part of the calendar year 2013 or 2014 production costs calculations.

The APSC has approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Texas is recovering its 2013 rough production cost equalization payment over three years beginning April 2014. Entergy Texas included its 2014 rough production cost equalization payment as component of an interim fuel refund made in 2014. Management believes that any changes in the allocation of production costs resulting from the FERC’s decision and related retail proceedings should result in similar rate changes for retail customers, subject to specific circumstances that have caused trapped costs.  

Comprehensive Bandwidth Recalculation for 2007, 2008, and 2009 Rate Filing Proceedings

In July 2014 the FERC issued four orders in connection with various Service Schedule MSS-3 rough production cost equalization formula compliance filings and rehearing requests. Specifically, the FERC accepted Entergy Services’ revised methodologies for calculating certain cost components of the formula and affirmed its prior ruling requiring interest on the true-up amounts. The FERC directed that a comprehensive recalculation of the formula be performed for the filing years 2007, 2008, and 2009 based on calendar years 2006, 2007, and 2008 production costs. In September 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC its compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts, including interest, among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s orders for the 2007, 2008, and 2009 rate filing proceedings. The filing shows the following additional payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$38
Entergy Louisiana	($38)
Entergy Mississippi	$16
Entergy New Orleans	($1)
Entergy Texas	($15)

Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi made the payments in September and October 2014.

The FERC proceedings that resulted from rate filings made in 2007, 2008, and 2009 have been resolved by various orders issued by the FERC and appellate courts. See below for a discussion of rate filings since 2009 and the comprehensive recalculation filing directed by the FERC in the proceeding related to the 2010 rate filing.

2010 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2009 Production Costs

In May 2010, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2010 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding, and supplemented the filing in September 2010.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC and the City Council, which also filed protests.  In July 2010 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2010, subject to refund, and set the proceeding for hearing and settlement procedures.  Settlement procedures have been terminated, and the ALJ scheduled hearings to begin in March 2011.  Subsequently, in January 2011 the ALJ issued an order directing the parties and FERC Staff to show cause why this proceeding should not be stayed pending the issuance of FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review.  In March 2011 the ALJ issued an order placing this proceeding in abeyance. In October 2013 the FERC issued an order granting clarification and denying rehearing with respect to its October 2011 rehearing order in this proceeding. The FERC clarified that in a bandwidth proceeding parties can challenge erroneous inputs, implementation errors, or prudence of cost inputs, but challenges to the bandwidth formula itself must be raised in a Federal Power Act section 206 complaint or section 205 filing. Subsequently in October 2013 the presiding ALJ lifted the stay order holding in abeyance the hearing previously ordered by the FERC and directing that the remaining issues proceed to a hearing on the merits. The hearing was held in March 2014 and the presiding ALJ issued an initial decision in September 2014. Briefs on exception were filed in October 2014. In December 2015 the FERC issued an order affirming the initial decision in part and rejecting the initial decision in part. Among other things, the December 2015 order directs Entergy Services to submit a compliance filing, the results of which may affect the rough production cost equalization filings made for the June - December 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 test periods. In January 2016 the LPSC, the APSC, and Entergy Services filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s December 2015 order. In February 2016, Entergy Services submitted the compliance filing ordered in the December 2015 order.  The result of the true-up payments and receipts for the recalculation of production costs resulted in the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$2
Entergy Louisiana	$6
Entergy Mississippi	($4)
Entergy New Orleans	($1)
Entergy Texas	($3)

2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs

In May 2011, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2011 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest.  In July 2011 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2011, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review. In January 2014 the LPSC filed a petition for a writ of mandamus at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In its petition, the LPSC requested that the Fifth Circuit issue an order compelling the FERC to issue a final order in several proceedings related to the System Agreement, including the 2011 rate filing based on calendar year 2010 production costs and the 2012 and 2013 rate filings discussed below. In March 2014 the Fifth Circuit rejected the LPSC’s petition for a writ of mandamus. In December 2014 the FERC rescinded its earlier abeyance order and consolidated the 2011 rate filing with the 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs

In May 2012, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2012 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest.  In August 2012 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 2012, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review. In December 2014 the FERC rescinded its earlier abeyance order and consolidated the 2012 rate filing with the 2011, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs

In May 2013, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2013 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest. The City Council intervened and filed comments related to including the outcome of a related FERC proceeding in the 2013 cost equalization calculation. In August 2013 the FERC issued an order accepting the 2013 rates, effective June 1, 2013, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review. In December 2014 the FERC rescinded its earlier abeyance order and consolidated the 2013 Rate Filing with the 2011, 2012, and 2014 Rate Filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs

In May 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2014 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest. The City Council intervened and filed comments. In December 2014 the FERC issued an order accepting the 2014 rates, effective June 1, 2014, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and consolidated the 2014 Rate Filing with the 2011, 2012, and 2013 Rate Filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

Consolidated 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Rate Filing Proceedings

As discussed above, in December 2014 the FERC consolidated the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. 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. In July 2015 the parties filed direct and answering testimony. Among other issues with the pending bandwidth calculations, the LPSC challenged the administration of the accounting for joint account sales of energy in the intra-system bill. In August and September 2015 the parties filed additional rounds of testimony in the consolidated hearing for the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings. In October 2015 the LPSC withdrew its testimony challenging the accounting for joint account sales of energy. The hearings occurred in November 2015, and an initial decision from the ALJ is expected in July 2016.

2015 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2014 Production Costs

In May 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2015 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing showed that no payments and receipts were required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC and City Council intervened and filed comments. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2015 rates for filing, suspended them for a nominal period, to become effective June 1, 2015, as requested, subject to refund, and set them for hearing and settlement judge procedures.

Calendar Year 2015 Production Costs

Entergy preliminarily estimates that no payments and receipts are required in 2016 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2015 production costs. The actual payments/receipts for 2016, based on calendar year 2015 production costs, will not be calculated until the Utility operating companies’ 2015 FERC Form 1s have been filed. Once the calculation is completed, it will be filed at the FERC. The level of any payments and receipts is significantly affected by a number of factors, including, among others, weather, the price of alternative fuels, the operating characteristics of the Entergy System generating fleet, and multiple factors affecting the calculation of the non-fuel related revenue requirement components of the total production costs, such as plant investment. The calculation based on 2015 production costs will be the last rough production cost equalization filing submitted by the Utility operating companies because the System Agreement will terminate at the end of August 2016.

Utility Operating Company Termination of System Agreement Participation

Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi ceased participating in the System Agreement effective December 18, 2013 and November 7, 2015, respectively. Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas will terminate participation in the System Agreement on August 31, 2016, which will result in the termination of the System Agreement in its entirety pursuant to a settlement agreement approved by the FERC in December 2015.

In connection with the System Agreement termination settlement agreement, it was determined that the purchase power agreements, referred to as the jurisdictional separation plan PPAs, between Entergy Texas and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana that were put in place for certain legacy gas units at the time of Entergy Gulf States’s separation into Entergy Texas and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana will terminate effective with System Agreement termination. Similarly, the PPA between Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Texas for the Calcasieu unit also will terminate. Currently, the jurisdictional separation plan PPAs are the means by which Entergy Texas receives payment for its receivable associated with Entergy Louisiana’s Spindletop gas storage facility regulatory asset. As a result of the System Agreement termination settlement agreement, effective with the termination date, Entergy Texas will no longer receive payments from Entergy Louisiana related to the Spindletop storage facility which resulted in a write-off recorded in 2015 by Entergy Texas of $23.5 million ($15.3 million net-of-tax).

Interruptible Load Proceeding

In April 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in the LPSC’s appeal of the FERC’s March 2004 and April 2005 orders related to the treatment under the System Agreement of the Utility operating companies’ interruptible loads.  In its opinion the D.C. Circuit concluded that the FERC (1) acted arbitrarily and capriciously by allowing the Utility operating companies to phase-in the effects of the elimination of the interruptible load over a 12-month period of time; (2) failed to adequately explain why refunds could not be ordered under Section 206(c) of the Federal Power Act; and (3) exercised appropriately its discretion to defer addressing the cost of sulfur dioxide allowances until a later time.  The D.C. Circuit remanded the matter to the FERC for a more considered determination on the issue of refunds.  The FERC issued its order on remand in September 2007, in which it directed Entergy to make a compliance filing removing all interruptible load from the computation of peak load responsibility commencing April 1, 2004 and to issue any necessary refunds to reflect this change.  In addition, the order directed the Utility operating companies to make refunds for the period May 1995 through July 1996.  In November 2007 the Utility operating companies filed a refund report describing the refunds to be issued pursuant to the FERC’s orders.  The LPSC filed a protest to the refund report in December 2007, and the Utility operating companies filed an answer to the protest in January 2008.  The refunds were made in October 2008 by the Utility operating companies that owed refunds to the Utility operating companies that were due a refund under the decision.  The APSC and the Utility operating companies appealed the FERC decisions to the D.C. Circuit.   

Following the filing of petitioners’ initial briefs, the FERC filed a motion requesting the D.C. Circuit hold the appeal of the FERC’s decisions ordering refunds in the interruptible load proceeding in abeyance and remand the record to the FERC.  The D.C. Circuit granted the FERC’s unopposed motion in June 2009.  In December 2009 the FERC established a paper hearing to determine whether the FERC had the authority and, if so, whether it would be appropriate to order refunds resulting from changes in the treatment of interruptible load in the allocation of capacity costs by the Utility operating companies.  In August 2010 the FERC issued an order stating that it has the authority and refunds are appropriate.  The APSC, MPSC, and Entergy requested rehearing of the FERC’s decision.  In June 2011 the FERC issued an order granting rehearing in part and denying rehearing in part, in which the FERC determined to invoke its discretion to deny refunds.  The FERC held that in this case where “the Entergy system as a whole collected the proper level of revenue, but, as was later established, incorrectly allocated peak load responsibility among the various Entergy operating companies….the Commission will apply here our usual practice in such cases, invoking our equitable discretion to not order refunds, notwithstanding our authority to do so.”  The LPSC has requested rehearing of the FERC’s June 2011 decision.  In July 2011 the refunds made in the fourth quarter 2009 described above were reversed. In October 2011 the FERC issued an “Order Establishing Paper Hearing” inviting parties that oppose refunds to file briefs within 30 days addressing the LPSC’s argument that FERC precedent supports refunds under the circumstances present in this proceeding.  Parties that favor refunds were then invited to file reply briefs within 21 days of the date that the initial briefs are due.  Briefs were submitted and the matter is pending.

In September 2010 the FERC had issued an order setting the refund report filed in the proceeding in November 2007 for hearing and settlement judge procedures.  In May 2011, Entergy filed a settlement agreement that resolved all issues relating to the refund report set for hearing.  In June 2011 the settlement judge certified the settlement as uncontested and the settlement agreement is currently pending before the FERC.  In July 2011, Entergy filed an amended/corrected refund report and a motion to defer action on the settlement agreement until after the FERC rules on the LPSC’s rehearing request regarding the June 2011 decision denying refunds.

Prior to the FERC’s June 2011 order on rehearing, Entergy Arkansas filed an application in November 2010 with the APSC for recovery of the refund that it paid.  The APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s application, and also denied Entergy Arkansas’s petition for rehearing.  If the FERC were to order Entergy Arkansas to pay refunds on rehearing in the interruptible load proceeding the APSC’s decision would trap FERC-approved costs at Entergy Arkansas with no regulatory-approved mechanism to recover them.  In August 2011, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas asking for a declaratory judgment that the rejection of Entergy Arkansas’s application by the APSC is preempted by the Federal Power Act.  The APSC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  In April 2012 the United States district court dismissed Entergy Arkansas’s complaint without prejudice stating that Entergy Arkansas’s claim is not ripe for adjudication and that Entergy Arkansas did not have standing to bring suit at this time.

In March 2013 the FERC issued an order denying the LPSC’s request for rehearing of the FERC’s June 2011 order wherein the FERC concluded it would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in the interruptible load proceeding. Based on its review of the LPSC’s request for rehearing and the briefs filed as part of the paper hearing established in October 2011, the FERC affirmed its earlier ruling and declined to order refunds under the circumstances of the case. 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 the proceeding. Oral argument was held on the appeal in the D.C. Circuit in September 2014. 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. The matter is pending.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

In June 2009, the LPSC filed a complaint requesting that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocate the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibits sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies.   The LPSC’s complaint challenges sales made beginning in 2002 and requests refunds.  In July 2009 the Utility operating companies filed a response to the complaint requesting that the FERC dismiss the complaint on the merits without hearing because the LPSC has failed to meet its burden of showing any violation of the System Agreement and failed to produce any evidence of imprudent action by the Entergy System.  In their response, the Utility operating companies explained that the System Agreement clearly contemplates that the Utility operating companies may make sales to third parties for their own account, subject to the requirement that those sales be included in the load (or load shape) for the applicable Utility operating company.  The response further explained that the FERC already had determined that Entergy Arkansas’s short-term wholesale sales did not trigger the “right-of-first-refusal” provision of the System Agreement.  While the D.C. Circuit recently determined that the “right-of-first-refusal” issue was not properly before the FERC at the time of its earlier decision on the issue, the LPSC raised no additional claims or facts that would warrant the FERC reaching a different conclusion.

The LPSC filed direct testimony in the proceeding alleging, among other things, (1) that Entergy violated the System Agreement by permitting Entergy Arkansas to make non-requirements sales to non-affiliated third parties rather than making such energy available to the other Utility operating companies’ customers; and (2) that over the period 2000 - 2009, these non-requirements sales caused harm to the Utility operating companies’ customers and these customers should be compensated for this harm by Entergy.  In subsequent testimony, the LPSC modified its original damages claim in favor of quantifying damages by re-running intra-system bills.  The Utility operating companies believe the LPSC’s allegations are without merit.  A hearing in the matter was held in August 2010.

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

The FERC issued a decision in June 2012 and held that, while the System Agreement is ambiguous, it does provide authority for individual Utility operating companies to make opportunity sales for their own account and Entergy Arkansas made and priced these sales in good faith.  The FERC found, however, that the System Agreement does not provide authority for an individual Utility operating company to allocate the energy associated with such opportunity sales as part of its load, but provides a different allocation authority.  The FERC further found that the after-the-fact accounting methodology used to allocate the energy used to supply the sales was inconsistent with the System Agreement.  Quantifying the effect of the FERC’s decision will require re-running intra-system bills for a ten-year period, and the FERC in its decision established further hearing procedures to determine the calculation of the effects.  In July 2012, Entergy and the LPSC filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s June 2012 decision, which are pending with the FERC.

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

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

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy Arkansas

Entergy Arkansas December 2012 Winter Storm

In December 2012 a severe winter storm consisting of ice, snow, and high winds caused significant damage to Entergy Arkansas’s distribution lines, equipment, poles, and other facilities.  Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Arkansas’s electrical facilities in areas damaged from the winter storm were $63 million, including costs recorded as regulatory assets of approximately $22 million.  In the Entergy Arkansas 2013 rate case, the APSC approved inclusion of the construction spending in rate base and approved an increase in the normal storm cost accrual.

Entergy Louisiana

Hurricane Isaac

In August 2012, Hurricane Isaac caused extensive damage to portions of Entergy’s service area in Louisiana, and to a lesser extent in Mississippi and Arkansas.  The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages.  In January 2013, Entergy Louisiana drew $252 million, from its funded storm reserve escrow accounts.  In April 2013, Entergy Louisiana filed a joint application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs.  Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested that the LPSC determine the amount of such costs that were prudently incurred and are, thus, eligible for recovery from customers.  Including carrying costs and additional storm escrow funds for prior storms, Entergy Louisiana requested an LPSC determination that $321.5 million in system restoration costs were prudently incurred. In May 2013, Entergy Louisiana, and the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation (LURC), an instrumentality of the State of Louisiana, filed with the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant financing orders authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Act 55 of the Louisiana Regular Session of 2007 (Louisiana Act 55). The LPSC Staff filed direct testimony in September 2013 concluding that Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs incurred by Entergy Louisiana were reasonable and prudent, subject to proposed minor adjustments which totaled approximately 1% of the company’s costs. Following an evidentiary hearing and recommendations by the ALJ, the LPSC voted in June 2014 to approve a series of orders which (i) quantify the amount of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs prudently incurred ($290.8 million for Entergy Louisiana); (ii) determine the level of storm reserves to be re-established ($290 million for Entergy Louisiana); (iii) authorize Entergy Louisiana to utilize Louisiana Act 55 financing for Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs; and (iv) grant other requested relief associated with storm reserves and Act 55 financing of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs.  Entergy Louisiana committed to pass on to customers a minimum of $30.8 million of customer benefits through annual customer credits of approximately $6.2 million for five years. Approvals for the Act 55 financings were obtained from the LURC and the Louisiana State Bond Commission.

In July 2014, Entergy Louisiana issued two series totaling $300 million of 3.78% Series first mortgage bonds due April 2025. Entergy Louisiana used the proceeds to re-establish and replenish its storm damage escrow reserves and for general corporate purposes.

In August 2014 the Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority (LCDA) issued $314.85 million in bonds under Louisiana Act 55.  From the $309 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LCDA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $16 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $293 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  Entergy Louisiana used the $293 million received from the LURC to acquire 2,935,152.69 Class C preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy, that carry a 7.5% annual distribution rate. Distributions are payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2014, and the membership interests have a liquidation price of $100 per unit. The preferred membership interests are callable at the option of Entergy Holdings Company LLC after ten years under the terms of the LLC agreement. The terms of the membership interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Holdings Company LLC is subject, including the requirement to maintain a net worth of at least $1.75 billion.

Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LCDA and there is no recourse against Entergy or Entergy Louisiana in the event of a bond default.  To service the bonds, Entergy Louisiana collect a system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC, and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee.  Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as the billing and collection agent for the state.

Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike

In September 2008, Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike caused catastrophic damage to Entergy’s service territory.  Entergy Louisiana filed its Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike storm cost recovery case with the LPSC in May 2009.  In September 2009, Entergy Louisiana and the LURC filed with the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant financing orders authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55. Entergy Louisiana’s Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita storm costs were financed primarily by Louisiana Act 55 financing, as discussed below.  Entergy Louisiana also filed an application requesting LPSC approval for ancillary issues including the mechanism to flow charges and Louisiana Act 55 financing savings to customers via a Storm Cost Offset rider.

In December 2009, Entergy Louisiana entered into a stipulation agreement with the LPSC Staff that provides for total recoverable costs of approximately $628 million, including carrying costs.  Under this stipulation, Entergy Louisiana agrees not to recover $11.6 million of its storm restoration spending.  The stipulation also permits replenishing Entergy Louisiana’s storm reserve in the amount of $290 million when the Act 55 financings are accomplished.  In March and April 2010, Entergy Louisiana and other parties to the proceeding filed with the LPSC an uncontested stipulated settlement that includes these terms and also includes Entergy Louisiana’s proposal under the Act 55 financings, which includes a commitment to pass on to customers a minimum of $43.3 million of customer benefits through a prospective annual rate reduction of $8.7 million for five years.  A stipulation hearing was held before the ALJ on April 13, 2010.  On April 21, 2010, the LPSC approved the settlement and subsequently issued financing orders and a ratemaking order intended to facilitate the implementation of the Act 55 financings.  In June 2010 the Louisiana State Bond Commission approved the Act 55 financing.

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

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

Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita

In August and September 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused catastrophic damage to large portions of the Utility’s service territories in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, including the effect of extensive flooding that resulted from levee breaks in and around the greater New Orleans area.  The storms and flooding resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to electric distribution, transmission, and generation and gas infrastructure, and the loss of sales and customers due to mandatory evacuations and the destruction of homes and businesses.

In March 2008, Entergy Louisiana and the LURC filed at the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant a financing order authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55.  The Louisiana Act 55 financing is expected to produce additional customer benefits as compared to traditional securitization.  Entergy Louisiana also filed an application requesting LPSC approval for ancillary issues including the mechanism to flow charges and savings to customers via a Storm Cost Offset rider.  On April 8, 2008, the Louisiana Public Facilities Authority (LPFA), which is the issuer of the bonds pursuant to the Act 55 financing, approved requests for the Act 55 financing.  On April 10, 2008, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC Staff filed with the LPSC an uncontested stipulated settlement that includes Entergy Louisiana’s proposal under the Act 55 financing, which includes a commitment to pass on to customers a minimum of $40 million of customer benefits through a prospective annual rate reduction of $8 million for five years.  On April 16, 2008, the LPSC approved the settlement and issued two financing orders and one ratemaking order intended to facilitate implementation of the Act 55 financing.  In May 2008 the Louisiana State Bond Commission granted final approval of the Act 55 financing.

In July 2008, the LPFA issued $687.7 million in bonds under the aforementioned Act 55.  From the $679 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LPFA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $152 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $527 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Louisiana invested $545 million, including $17.8 million that was withdrawn from the restricted escrow account as approved by the April 16, 2008 LPSC orders, in exchange for 5,449,861.85 Class A preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy, that carry a 10% annual distribution rate.  In August 2008, the LPFA issued $278.4 million in bonds under the aforementioned Act 55.  From the $274.7 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LPFA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $87 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $187.7 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Louisiana invested $189.4 million, including $1.7 million that was withdrawn from the restricted escrow account as approved by the April 16, 2008 LPSC orders, in exchange for 1,893,918.39 Class A preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC that carry a 10% annual distribution rate.  Distributions are payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2008 and have a liquidation price of $100 per unit.  The preferred membership interests are callable at the option of Entergy Holdings Company LLC after ten years under the terms of the LLC agreement.  The terms of the membership interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Holdings Company LLC is subject, including the requirement to maintain a net worth of at least $1 billion.  In February 2012, Entergy Louisiana sold 500,000 of its Class A preferred membership units in Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a wholly-owned Entergy subsidiary, to a third party in exchange for $51 million plus accrued but unpaid distributions on the units.  The 500,000 preferred membership units are mandatorily redeemable in January 2112.

Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LPFA, and there is no recourse against Entergy or Entergy Louisiana in the event of a bond default.  To service the bonds, Entergy Louisiana collect a system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC, and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee.  Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as the billing and collection agent for the state.

Entergy Mississippi

On July 1, 2013, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation, wherein both parties agreed that approximately $32 million in storm restoration costs incurred in 2011 and 2012 were prudently incurred and chargeable to the storm damage provision, while approximately $700,000 in prudently incurred costs were more properly recoverable through the formula rate plan. Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff also agreed that the storm damage accrual should be increased from $750,000 per month to $1.75 million per month. In September 2013 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with the increase in the storm damage accrual effective with October 2013 bills. In February 2015, Entergy Mississippi provided notice to the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff that the storm damage accrual would be set to zero effective with the March 2015 billing cycle as a result of Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage accrual balance exceeding $15 million as of January 31, 2015, but will return to its current level when the storm damage accrual balance becomes less than $10 million.

Entergy New Orleans

In October 2006 the City Council approved a rate filing settlement agreement that, among other things, authorized a $75 million storm reserve for damage from future storms, which will be created over a ten-year period through a storm reserve rider that began in March 2007.  These storm reserve funds are held in a restricted escrow account until needed in response to a storm.  

In August 2012, Hurricane Isaac caused extensive damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy New Orleans’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Isaac were $47.3 million. Entergy New Orleans withdrew $17.4 million from the storm reserve escrow account to partially offset these costs. In February 2014, Entergy New Orleans made a filing with the City Council seeking certification of the Hurricane Isaac costs. In January 2015 the City Council issued a resolution approving the terms of a joint agreement in principle filed by Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Louisiana, and the City Council Advisors determining, among other things, that Entergy New Orleans’s prudently-incurred storm recovery costs were $49.3 million, of which $31.7 million, net of reimbursements from the storm reserve escrow account, remains recoverable from Entergy New Orleans’s electric customers. The resolution also directs Entergy New Orleans to file an application to securitize the unrecovered Council-approved storm recovery costs of $31.7 million pursuant to the Louisiana Electric Utility Storm Recovery Securitization Act (Louisiana Act 64). In addition, the resolution found that it is reasonable for Entergy New Orleans to include in the principal amount of its potential securitization the costs to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve in an amount that achieves the Council-approved funding level of $75 million. In January 2015, in compliance with that directive, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the financing of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. 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. In May 2015 the parties entered into an agreement in principle and the City Council issued a financing order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to issue storm recovery bonds in the aggregate amount of $98.7 million, including $31.8 million for recovery of Entergy New Orleans’s Hurricane Isaac storm recovery costs, including carrying costs, $63.9 million to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve, and approximately $3 million for estimated up-front financing costs associated with the securitization. See Note 5 to the financial statements for discussion of the issuance of the securitization bonds in July 2015.

New Nuclear Generation Development Costs

Entergy Louisiana

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana were developing a project option for new nuclear generation at River Bend.  In March 2010, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC seeking approval to continue the limited development activities necessary to preserve an option to construct a new unit at River Bend.  At its June 2012 meeting the LPSC voted to uphold an ALJ recommendation that the request of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana be declined on the basis that the LPSC’s rule on new nuclear development does not apply to activities to preserve an option to develop and on the further grounds that the companies improperly engaged in advanced preparation activities prior to certification.  The LPSC directed that Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana be permitted to seek recovery of these costs in their upcoming rate case filings that were subsequently filed in February 2013. In the resolution of the rate case proceeding the LPSC provided for an eight-year amortization of costs incurred in connection with the potential development of new nuclear generation at River Bend, without carrying costs, beginning in December 2014, provided, however, that amortization of these costs shall not result in a future rate increase. As of December 31, 2015, Entergy Louisiana has a regulatory asset of $50.4 million on its balance sheet related to these new nuclear generation development costs.

Entergy Mississippi

Pursuant to the Mississippi Baseload Act and the Mississippi Public Utilities Act, Entergy Mississippi had been developing and preserving a project option for new nuclear generation at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station.  In October 2010, Entergy Mississippi filed an application with the MPSC requesting that the MPSC determine that it was in the public interest to preserve the option to construct new nuclear generation at Grand Gulf and that the MPSC approve the deferral of Entergy Mississippi’s costs incurred to date and in the future related to this project, including the accrual of AFUDC or similar carrying charges.  In October 2011, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed with the MPSC a joint stipulation that the MPSC approved in November 2011.  The stipulation stated that there should be a deferral of the $57 million of costs incurred through September 2011 in connection with planning, evaluation, monitoring, and other and related generation resource development activities for new nuclear generation at Grand Gulf.  

In October 2014, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into and filed joint stipulations in Entergy Mississippi’s general rate case proceeding, which are discussed above. In consideration of the comprehensive terms for settlement in that rate case proceeding, the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff and Entergy Mississippi agreed that Entergy Mississippi would request consolidation of the new nuclear generation development costs proceeding with the rate case proceeding for hearing purposes and will not further pursue, except as noted below, recovery of the costs deferred by MPSC order in the new nuclear generation development docket. The stipulations state, however, that, if Entergy Mississippi decides to move forward with nuclear development in Mississippi, it can at that time re-present for consideration by the MPSC only those costs directly associated with the existing early site permit (ESP), to the extent that the costs are verifiable and prudent and the ESP is still valid and relevant to any such option pursued. After considering the progress of the new nuclear generation costs proceeding in light of the joint stipulations, Entergy Mississippi recorded in 2014 a $56.2 million pre-tax charge to recognize that the regulatory asset associated with new nuclear generation development is no longer probable of recovery. In December 2014 the MPSC issued an order accepting in their entirety the October 2014 stipulations, including the findings and terms of the stipulations regarding new nuclear generation development costs.

Texas Power Price Lawsuit

In August 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the district court of Chambers County, Texas by Texas residents on behalf of a purported class of the Texas retail customers of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. who were billed and paid for electric power from January 1, 1994 to the present.  The named defendants include Entergy Corporation, Entergy Services, Entergy Power, Entergy Power Marketing Corp., and Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Gulf States, Inc. was not a named defendant, but was alleged to be a co-conspirator.  The court granted the request of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. to intervene in the lawsuit to protect its interests.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a “price gouging accounting scheme” to sell to plaintiffs and similarly situated utility customers higher priced power generated by the defendants while rejecting less expensive power offered from off-system suppliers.  In particular, plaintiffs allege that the defendants manipulated and continue to manipulate the dispatch of generation so that power is purchased from affiliated expensive resources instead of buying cheaper off-system power.

Plaintiffs stated in their pleadings that customers in Texas were charged at least $57 million above prevailing market prices for power.  Plaintiffs seek actual, consequential and exemplary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees, and disgorgement of profits.  The plaintiffs’ experts have tendered a report calculating damages in a large range, from $153 million to $972 million in present value, under various scenarios as of the date of the report.  The Entergy defendants have tendered expert reports challenging the assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions of the plaintiffs’ expert reports.

In March 2012 the state district court found that the case met the requirements to be maintained as a class action under Texas law.  In April 2012 the court entered an order certifying the class.  The defendants appealed the order to the Texas Court of Appeals – First District and oral argument was held in May 2013. In November 2014 the Texas Court of Appeals - First District reversed the state district court’s class certification order and dismissed the case holding that the state district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to address the issues. Plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing and a motion for rehearing en banc. 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. In July 2015 the Court of Appeals issued a new opinion again finding that the plaintiffs’ claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC and, therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The Court of Appeals ordered that the state district court dismiss all claims against the Entergy defendants. In September 2015 plaintiffs filed a petition for review at the Supreme Court of Texas. At the request of the Court, the Entergy defendants filed a response in December 2015. In January 2016 the Supreme Court of Texas issued an order requiring the parties to file briefs on the merits.

System Energy [Member]

Rate And Regulatory Matters

RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities

Regulatory assets represent probable future revenues associated with costs that Entergy expects to recover from customers through the regulatory ratemaking process under which the Utility business operates. Regulatory liabilities represent probable future reductions in revenues associated with amounts that Entergy expects to benefit customers through the regulatory ratemaking process under which the Utility business operates. In addition to the regulatory assets and liabilities that are specifically disclosed on the face of the balance sheets, the tables below provide detail of “Other regulatory assets” and “Other regulatory liabilities” that are included on Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and 2014:

Other Regulatory Assets

Entergy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$2,574.9		$2,798.8
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 – Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators) (Note 5 - Entergy Arkansas Securitization Bonds)	717.8		736.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	589.1		513.8
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	273.3		245.1
Little Gypsy costs – recovered through securitization (Note 5 – Entergy Louisiana Securitization Bonds - Little Gypsy)	121.1		139.2
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	66.7		76.2
Transition to competition costs - recovered over a 15-year period through February 2021	57.4		66.2
New nuclear generation development costs (Note 2 - New Nuclear Generation Development Costs) (c)	51.1		58.4
MISO implementation costs - recovery through retail rate riders (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	49.4		69.6
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined by retail regulators	32.2		54.7
Human capital management costs - recovery through retail rate mechanisms (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	28.3		42.3
Other	143.5		168.1
Entergy Total		$4,704.8		$4,968.6

Entergy Arkansas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$766.5		$838.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	288.0		254.8
Storm damage costs - recovered either through securitization or retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators) (Note 5 - Entergy Arkansas Securitization Bonds)	97.2		125.6
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	85.7		59.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	23.0		26.2
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	18.1		23.3
MISO implementation costs - recovery through retail rates through 2018 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (c)	17.5		25.1
Human capital management costs - recovery through retail rates through June 2017 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (c)	10.4		17.3
Lake Catherine 4 reliability and sustainability cost deferral - recovery expected through retail rates (c)	10.4		2.4
Incremental ice storm costs - recovered through 2032	8.4		9.0
Other	8.6		10.4
Entergy Arkansas Total		$1,333.8		$1,391.3

Entergy Louisiana

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$718.7		$774.0
Asset Retirement Obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	180.8		167.5
Little Gypsy costs – recovered through securitization (Note 5 – Entergy Louisiana Securitization Bonds - Little Gypsy)	119.2		139.2
New nuclear generation development costs - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2014 through November 2022 (Note 2 - New Nuclear Generation Development Costs) (c)	50.4		58.4
MISO implementation costs - recovery through the MISO cost recovery mechanism beginning December 2014 through November 2017 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	26.6		37.1
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	19.2		21.1
Human capital management costs - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2014 through November 2017 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	17.6		25.0
River Bend AFUDC - recovered through August 2025 (Note 1 – River Bend AFUDC)	16.7		18.6
Business combination external costs deferral - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2015 through November 2025 (c)	16.1		—
MISO integration deferral - recovery through the MISO cost recovery mechanism beginning December 2014 through November 2017	14.5		23.3
Gas hedging costs - recovered through fuel rates (Note 16 - Derivatives)	7.0		15.8
Spindletop gas storage facility - recovery period through August 2016 (a) (Note 2 - System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings)	1.1		26.2
Other	30.0		34.4
Entergy Louisiana Total		$1,217.9		$1,340.6

Entergy Mississippi

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)		$216.1		$224.3
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	77.5		76.3
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	7.6		27.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	7.1		8.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	6.7		6.3
Baxter Wilson outage costs - recovered through retail rates over two years beginning February 2015 (Note 8 - Baxter Wilson Plant Event)	3.2		6.0
MISO implementation costs - recovery through retail rate riders (Note 2 – Retail Rate Proceedings)	2.7		4.0
Other	7.8		12.6
Entergy Mississippi Total		$328.7		$364.7

Entergy New Orleans

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through retail rates and securitization (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators)		$104.0		$18.5
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)	103.7		115.8
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	29.4		35.2
Michoud plant maintenance – recovered over a 7-year period through September 2018	5.2		7.2
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (b)	4.0		3.8
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined monthly or annually	3.1		0.4
Rate case costs - recovered through retail rates (c)	3.2		3.0
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	1.6		1.8
Other	11.1		9.2
Entergy New Orleans Total		$265.3		$194.9

Entergy Texas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators)		$516.2		$591.7
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)	193.6		217.0
Transition to competition costs - recovered over a 15-year period through February 2021	57.4		66.2
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	25.8		18.9
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	9.4		10.5
Rate case costs -recovered through retail rates (c)	3.8		8.4
Other	6.7		9.4
Entergy Texas Total		$812.9		$922.1

System Energy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans and Other Postretirement Benefits) (b)		$178.0		$191.0
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (b)	108.6		80.4
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)	54.8		55.7
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	6.4		8.5
System Energy Total		$347.8		$335.6

(a) The jurisdictional split order assigned the regulatory asset to Entergy Texas.  The regulatory asset, however, is being recovered and amortized at Entergy Louisiana.  As a result, a billing occurs monthly over the same term as the recovery and receipts will be submitted to Entergy Texas.  Entergy Texas has recorded a receivable from Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana has recorded a corresponding payable.

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

(c) Does not earn a return on investment.

Other Regulatory Liabilities

Entergy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)		$611.7		$656.7
Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8)	222.6		242.8
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation (Note 2)	156.0		156.0
Business combination guaranteed customer benefits - returned to customers through retail rates and fuel rates beginning December 2015 through November 2024 (Note 2 - Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination)	105.2		—
Removal costs - returned to customers through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)	68.3		82.7
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback - (Note 10 - Sale and Leaseback Transactions)	67.9		79.5
Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - amortized and credited through the UPSA	46.4		53.6
Entergy Arkansas’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and FERC	44.4		44.4
Waterford 3 replacement steam generator provision (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	31.7		—
Asset retirement obligation - will be returned to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)	28.2		27.7
Other	32.5		40.2
Entergy Total		$1,414.9		$1,383.6

Entergy Arkansas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)		$236.1		$254.0
Other	6.8		—
Entergy Arkansas Total		$242.9		$254.0

Entergy Louisiana

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8)		$222.6		$242.8
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)	196.9		209.1
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation (Note 2)	156.0		156.0
Business combination guaranteed customer benefits - returned to customers through retail rates and fuel rates beginning December 2015 through November 2024 (Note 2 - Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination)	105.2		—
Removal costs - returned to customers through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)	68.3		82.6
Waterford 3 replacement steam generator provision (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	31.7		—
Asset Retirement Obligation - will be returned to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)	28.2		27.7
Other	9.7		4.2
Entergy Louisiana Total		$818.6		$722.4

Entergy Texas

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Transition to competition costs - returned to customers through rate riders when rates are redetermined periodically		$6.4		$5.1
Entergy Texas Total		$6.4		$5.1

System Energy

	2015		2014
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)		$178.7		$193.6
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback - (Note 10 - Sale and Leaseback Transactions)	67.9		79.5
Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - amortized and credited through the UPSA	46.4		53.6
Entergy Arkansas’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and FERC	44.4		44.4
System Energy Total		$337.4		$371.1

(a) Offset by related asset.

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas are allowed to recover fuel and purchased power costs through fuel mechanisms included in electric and gas rates that are recorded as fuel cost recovery revenues.  The difference between revenues collected and the current fuel and purchased power costs is generally recorded as “Deferred fuel costs” on the Utility operating companies’ financial statements.  The table below shows the amount of deferred fuel costs as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 that Entergy expects to recover (or return to customers) through fuel mechanisms, subject to subsequent regulatory review.

	2015			2014
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas (a)		$57.8			$209.2
Entergy Louisiana (b)		$102.9			$107.1
Entergy Mississippi		($107.8	)		($2.2	)
Entergy New Orleans (b)		($24.9	)		($25.1	)
Entergy Texas		($25.1	)		$11.9

(a) 2015 and 2014 include respectively $66.7 million and $65.9 million for Entergy Arkansas of fuel, purchased power, and capacity costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

(b) 2015 and 2014 include $168.1 million for Entergy Louisiana and $4.1 million for Entergy New Orleans of fuel, purchased power, and capacity costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

Entergy Arkansas

Production Cost Allocation Rider

The APSC approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas as a result of the System Agreement proceedings, which are discussed in the “System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings” section below.  These costs cause an increase in Entergy Arkansas’s deferred fuel cost balance because Entergy Arkansas pays the costs over seven months but collects them from customers over twelve months.

In May 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider to recover the $3 million unrecovered retail balance as of December 31, 2013 and the $67.8 million System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment made in May 2014 as a result of the compliance filing pursuant to the FERC’s February 2014 orders related to the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. In June 2014 the APSC suspended the annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider and scheduled a hearing in September 2014. Upon a joint motion of the parties, the APSC canceled the September 2014 hearing and in January 2015 the APSC issued an order approving Entergy Arkansas’s request for recovery of the $3 million under-recovered amount based on the true-up of the production cost allocation rider and the $67.8 million May 2014 System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment subject to refund with interest, with recovery of these payments concluding with the last billing cycle in December 2015. The APSC also found that Entergy Arkansas is entitled to carrying charges pursuant to the current terms of the production cost allocation rider. Entergy Arkansas made its compliance filing pursuant to the order in January 2015 and the APSC issued its approval order, also in January 2015. The redetermined rate went into effect the first billing cycle of February 2015.

In May 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider, which included a $38 million payment made by Entergy Arkansas as a result of the FERC’s February 2014 order related to the comprehensive bandwidth recalculation for calendar year 2006, 2007, and 2008 production costs. The redetermined rate for the 2015 production cost allocation rider update was added to the redetermined rate from the 2014 production cost allocation rider update and the combined rate was effective with the first billing cycle of July 2015. This combined rate was effective through December 2015. The collection of the remainder of the redetermined rate for the 2015 production cost allocation rider update will continue through June 2016.

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

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

In October 2005 the APSC initiated an investigation into Entergy Arkansas’s interim energy cost recovery rate.  The investigation focused on Entergy Arkansas’s 1) gas contracting, portfolio, and hedging practices; 2) wholesale purchases during the period; 3) management of the coal inventory at its coal generation plants; and 4) response to the contractual failure of the railroads to provide coal deliveries.  In March 2006 the APSC extended its investigation to cover the costs included in Entergy Arkansas’s March 2006 annual energy cost rate filing, and a hearing was held in the APSC investigation in October 2006.

In January 2007 the APSC issued an order in its review of the energy cost rate.  The APSC found that Entergy Arkansas failed to maintain an adequate coal inventory level going into the summer of 2005 and that Entergy Arkansas should be responsible for any incremental energy costs that resulted from two outages caused by employee and contractor error.  The coal plant generation curtailments were caused by railroad delivery problems and Entergy Arkansas resolved litigation with the railroad regarding the delivery problems.  The APSC staff was directed to perform an analysis with Entergy Arkansas’s assistance to determine the additional fuel and purchased energy costs associated with these findings and file the analysis within sixty days of the order.  After a final determination of the costs is made by the APSC, Entergy Arkansas will be directed to refund that amount with interest to its customers as a credit on the energy cost recovery rider.  Entergy Arkansas requested rehearing of the order.

In February 2010 the APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s request for rehearing, and held a hearing in September 2010 to determine the amount of damages, if any, that should be assessed against Entergy Arkansas.  A decision is pending.  Entergy Arkansas expects the amount of damages, if any, to have an immaterial effect on its results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

The APSC also established a separate docket to consider the resolved railroad litigation, and in February 2010 it established a procedural schedule that concluded with testimony through September 2010.  The testimony was filed, and the APSC will decide the case based on the record in the proceeding.

In January 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion with the APSC relating to its redetermination of its energy cost rate that was filed in March 2014. In that motion, Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to exclude $65.9 million of deferred fuel and purchased energy costs incurred in 2013 from the redetermination of its 2014 energy cost rate. The $65.9 million is an estimate of the incremental fuel and replacement energy costs that Entergy Arkansas incurred as a result of the ANO stator incident. Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to retain that amount in its deferred fuel balance, with recovery to be reviewed in a later period after more information is available regarding various claims associated with the ANO stator incident. The APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’s request in February 2014. See the “ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews” section in Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of the ANO stator incident.

Entergy Louisiana

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

In April 2010 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009.  The LPSC staff issued its audit report in January 2013.  The LPSC staff recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $1.9 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $1 million from Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates.  The recommended refund was made by Entergy Louisiana in May 2013 in the form of a credit to customers through its fuel adjustment clause filing. Two parties intervened in the proceeding. A procedural schedule was established for the identification of issues by the intervenors and for Entergy Louisiana to submit comments regarding the LPSC Staff report and any issues raised by intervenors. One intervenor is seeking further proceedings regarding certain issues it raised in its comments on the LPSC Staff report. Entergy Louisiana has filed responses to both the LPSC Staff report and the issues raised by the intervenor. As required by the procedural schedule, a joint status report was submitted in October 2013 by the parties. A status conference was held in December 2013. Discovery has ceased and the parties are awaiting issuance of the audit report of the LPSC staff, but a procedural schedule has not been established.

In December 2011 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate another proceeding to audit the fuel adjustment clause filings of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and its affiliates.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period 2005 through 2009.  Discovery has ceased and the parties are awaiting issuance of the audit report of the LPSC staff, but a procedural schedule has not been established.

In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015.

In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015.

Entergy Mississippi

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

Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel balance of $60.4 million as of March 31, 2014. In May 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed for an interim adjustment under its energy cost recovery rider. The interim adjustment proposed a net energy cost factor designed to collect over a six-month period the under-recovered deferred fuel balance as of March 31, 2014 and also reflected a natural gas price of $4.50 per MMBtu. In May 2014, Entergy Mississippi and the Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation in which Entergy Mississippi agreed to a revised net energy cost factor that reflected the proposed interim adjustment with a reduction in costs recovered through the energy cost recovery rider associated with the suspension of the DOE nuclear waste storage fee. In June 2014 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation and allowed Entergy Mississippi’s interim adjustment. In November 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider.  Due to lower gas prices and a lower deferred fuel balance, the redetermined annual factor was a decrease from the revised interim net energy cost factor.  In January 2015 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective January 30, 2015.

Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel over-recovery balance of $58.3 million as of May 31, 2015, along with an under-recovery balance of $12.3 million under the power management rider. Pursuant to those tariffs, in July 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed for interim adjustments under both the energy cost recovery rider and the power management rider to flow through to customers the approximately $46 million net over-recovery over a six-month period. In August 2015, the MPSC approved the interim adjustments effective with September 2015 bills. In November 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included a projected over-recovery balance of $48 million projected through January 31, 2016. In January 2016 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective February 1, 2016. The MPSC further ordered, however, that due to the significant change in natural gas price forecasts since Entergy Mississippi’s filing in November 2015 Entergy Mississippi shall file a revised fuel factor with the MPSC no later than February 1, 2016. In February 2016, Entergy Mississippi submitted a revised fuel factor reflecting a natural gas price of $2.45 per MMBtu.

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 Attorney General appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the denial of the motion to remand. In July 2015 the Fifth Circuit issued an order denying the appeal, and the Attorney General subsequently filed a petition for rehearing of the request for interlocutory appeal, which was also denied. The case remains pending in federal district court, awaiting a ruling on the Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. In December 2015 the District Court ordered that the parties submit to the court undisputed and disputed facts that are material to the Entergy defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, as well as supplemental briefs regarding the same. Those filings were made in January 2016.

Entergy New Orleans

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

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

Entergy Texas

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

In October 2012, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to refund approximately $78 million, including interest, of fuel cost recovery over-collections through September 2012.  Entergy Texas requested that the refund be implemented over a six-month period effective with the January 2013 billing month.  Entergy Texas and the parties to the proceeding reached an agreement that Entergy Texas would refund $84 million, including interest and additional over-recoveries through October 2012, to most customers over a three-month period beginning January 2013.  The PUCT approved the stipulation in January 2013. Entergy Texas completed this refund to customers in March 2013.

In July 2012, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application to credit its customers approximately $37.5 million, including interest, resulting from the FERC’s October 2011 order in the System Agreement rough production cost equalization proceeding which is discussed below in “System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings.”  In September 2012 the parties submitted a stipulation resolving the proceeding.  The stipulation provided that most Entergy Texas customers would be credited over a four-month period beginning October 2012.  The credits were initiated with the October 2012 billing month on an interim basis, and the PUCT subsequently approved the stipulation, also in October 2012.

In August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking PUCT approval to implement an interim fuel refund of approximately $24.6 million for over-collected fuel costs incurred during the months of November 2012 through April 2014. This refund resulted from (i) applying $48.6 million in bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received in May 2014 related to the June - December 2005 period to Entergy Texas’s $8.7 million under-recovered fuel balance as of April 30, 2014 and (ii) netting that fuel balance against the $15.3 million bandwidth remedy paymentthat Entergy Texas made related to calendar year 2013 production costs. Also in August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed motion for interim rates to implement these refunds for most customers over a two-month period commencing with September 2014. The PUCT issued its order approving the interim relief in August 2014 and Entergy Texas completed the refunds in October 2014.Parties intervened in this matter, and all parties agreed that the proceeding should be bifurcated such that the proposed interim refund would become final in a separate proceeding, which refund was approved by the PUCT in March 2015.   In July 2015 certain parties filed briefs in the open proceeding asserting that Entergy Texas should refund to retail customers an additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs.  In October 2015 an ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments be refunded to retail customers. In January 2016 the PUCT issued its order affirming the ALJ’s recommendation, and Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the PUCT’s decision, which the PUCT denied.

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

Retail Rate Proceedings

Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas)

Retail Rates

2013 Base Rate Filing

In March 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing assumed Entergy Arkansas’s transition to MISO in December 2013, and requested a rate increase of $174 million, including $49 million of revenue being transferred from collection in riders to base rates. The filing also proposed a new transmission rider and a capacity cost recovery rider. The filing requested a 10.4% return on common equity. In September 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed testimony reflecting an updated rate increase request of $145 million, with no change to its requested return on common equity of 10.4%. Hearings in the proceeding began in October 2013, and in December 2013 the APSC issued an order. The order authorized a base rate increase of $81 million and included an authorized return on common equity of 9.3%. The order allowed Entergy Arkansas to amortize its human capital management costs over a three-and-a-half year period, but also ordered Entergy Arkansas to file a detailed report of the Arkansas-specific costs, savings and final payroll changes upon conclusion of the human capital management strategic imperative. The detailed report was subsequently filed in February 2015. The substance of the report was addressed in Entergy Arkansas’s 2015 base rate filing. New rates under the January 2014 order were implemented in the first billing cycle of March 2014 and were effective as of January 2014. Additionally, in January 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition for rehearing or clarification of several aspects of the APSC’s order, including the 9.3% authorized return on common equity. In February 2014 the APSC granted Entergy Arkansas’s petition for the purpose of considering the additional evidence identified by Entergy Arkansas. In August 2014 the APSC issued an order amending certain aspects of the original order, including providing for a 9.5% authorized return on common equity. Pursuant to the August 2014 order, revised rates were effective for all bills rendered after December 31, 2013 and were implemented in the first billing cycle of October 2014.

2015 Base Rate Filing

In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notified the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a forward test year formula rate plan pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requested a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requested a 10.2% return on common equity. In May 2015 the APSC issued an order suspending the proposed rates and tariffs filed by Entergy Arkansas and establishing a procedural schedule to complete its investigation of Entergy Arkansas’s application. In September 2015, APSC staff and intervenors filed direct testimony, with the APSC staff recommending a revenue requirement of $217.9 million and a 9.65% return on common equity. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in October 2015. In December 2015, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and certain of the intervenors in the rate case filed with the APSC a joint motion for approval of a settlement of the case that proposes a retail rate increase of approximately $225 million with a net increase in revenue of approximately $133 million; an authorized return on common equity of 9.75%; and a formula rate plan tariff that provides a 50 basis point band around the 9.75% allowed return on common equity.

A hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that would reduce the retail rate increase proposed in the settlement by $5 million. The parties were directed to inform the APSC by filing no later than February 26, 2016 whether they accept the APSC’s proposed settlement agreement modification or request a full hearing on the issues. Entergy Arkansas plans to make its first formula rate plan filing in July 2016 for rates effective with the first billing cycle of January 2017.

A significant portion of the rate increase is related to Entergy Arkansas’s acquisition of Union Power Station Power Block 2 for an expected base purchase price of $237 million, subject to adjustment. The acquisition is expected to be completed promptly following the receipt of FERC approval. If the acquisition closes on or before March 24, 2016, recovery of the costs to acquire Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station will be through Entergy Arkansas’s new base rates that will commence with the first billing cycle of April 2016. If the transaction closes after that date, the parties have agreed to concurrent cost recovery through Entergy Arkansas’s capacity acquisition rider.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)

Retail Rates - Electric

2013 Rate Cases

In connection with its decision to extend the formula rate plan to the 2011 test year, the LPSC required that a base rate case be filed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, and the required filing was made in February 2013. The filing anticipated Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s integration into MISO. In the filing Entergy Gulf States Louisiana requested, among other relief:

• authorization to increase the revenue it collects from customers by approximately $24 million;

• an authorized return on common equity of 10.4%;

• authorization to increase depreciation rates embedded in the proposed revenue requirement; and,

• authorization to implement a three-year formula rate plan with a midpoint return on common equity of 10.4%, plus or minus 75 basis points (the deadband), that would provide a means for the annual re-setting of rates (commencing with calendar year 2013 as its first test year), that would include a mechanism to recover incremental transmission revenue requirement on the basis of a forward-looking test year as compared to the initial base year of 2014 with an annual true-up, that would retain the primary aspects of the prior formula rate plan, including a 60% to customers/40% to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana sharing mechanism for earnings outside the deadband, and a capacity rider mechanism that would permit recovery of incremental capacity additions approved by the LPSC.

Following a hearing before an ALJ and the ALJ’s issuance of a Report of Proceedings, in December 2013 the LPSC approved an unopposed settlement of the proceeding. Major terms of the settlement included approval of a three-year formula rate plan (effective for test years 2014-2016) modeled after the formula rate plan in effect for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana for 2011, including the following: (1) a midpoint return on equity of 9.95% plus or minus 80 basis points, with 60/40 sharing of earnings outside of the bandwidth; (2) recovery outside of the sharing mechanism for the non-fuel MISO-related costs, additional capacity revenue requirement, extraordinary items, such as the Ninemile 6 project, and certain special recovery items; (3) three-year amortization of costs to achieve savings associated with the human capital management strategic imperative, with savings to be reflected as they are realized in subsequent years; (4) eight-year amortization of costs incurred in connection with potential development of a new nuclear unit at River Bend, without carrying costs, beginning December 2014, provided, however, that amortization of these costs shall not result in a future rate increase; (5) no change in rates related to test year 2013, except with respect to recovery of the non-fuel MISO-related costs and any changes to the additional capacity revenue requirement; and (6) no increase in rates related to test year 2014, except for those items eligible for recovery outside of the earnings sharing mechanism. Existing depreciation rates will not change. Implementation of rate changes for items recoverable outside of the earnings sharing mechanism occurred in December 2014.

Pursuant to the rate case settlement approved by the LPSC in December 2013, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted a compliance filing in May 2014 reflecting the effects of the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism revenue requirement and adjustment of the additional capacity mechanism. In November 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted an additional compliance filing updating the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism for the most recent actual data. Based on this updated filing, a net increase of $5.8 million in formula rate plan revenue to be collected over nine months was implemented in December 2014. The compliance filings are subject to LPSC review in accordance with the review process set forth in Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s formula rate plan.

In November 2011 the LPSC approved a one-year extension of Entergy Louisiana’s formula rate plan.  In May 2012, Entergy Louisiana made its formula rate plan filing with the LPSC for the 2011 test year.  The filing reflected a 9.63% earned return on common equity, which is within the earnings bandwidth and resulted in no cost of service rate change under the formula rate plan.  The filing also reflected an $18.1 million rate increase for the incremental capacity rider.  In August 2012, Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised filing that reflected an earned return on common equity of 10.38%, which is still within the earnings bandwidth, resulting in no cost of service rate change.  The revised filing also indicated that an increase of $15.9 million should be reflected in the incremental capacity rider.  The rate change was implemented, subject to refund, effective for bills rendered the first billing cycle of September 2012.  Subsequently, in December 2012, Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised evaluation report that reflected two items: 1) a $17 million reduction for the first-year capacity charges for the purchase by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana from Entergy Louisiana of one-third of Acadia Unit 2 capacity and energy, and 2) an $88 million increase for the first-year retail revenue requirement associated with the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, which was in-service in December 2012.  These rate changes were implemented, subject to refund, effective with the first billing cycle of January 2013.  In April 2013, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint report resolving the 2011 test year formula rate plan and recovery related to the Grand Gulf uprate. This report was approved by the LPSC in April 2013.

In connection with its decision to extend the formula rate plan to the 2011 test year, the LPSC required that a base rate case be filed by Entergy Louisiana, and the required filing was made on February 15, 2013. The filing anticipated Entergy Louisiana’s integration into MISO. In the filing Entergy Louisiana requested, among other relief:

• authorization to increase the revenue it collects from customers by approximately $145 million (which does not take into account a revenue offset of approximately $2 million resulting from a proposed increase for those customers taking service under the Qualifying Facility Standby Service);

• an authorized return on common equity of 10.4%;

• authorization to increase depreciation rates embedded in the proposed revenue requirement; and

• authorization to implement a three-year formula rate plan with a midpoint return on common equity of 10.4%, plus or minus 75 basis points (the deadband), that would provide a means for the annual re-setting of rates (commencing with calendar year 2013 as its first test year), that would include a mechanism to recover incremental transmission revenue requirement on the basis of a forward-looking test year as compared to the initial base year of 2014 with an annual true-up, that would retain the primary aspects of the prior formula rate plan, including a 60% to customers/40% to Entergy Louisiana sharing mechanism for earnings outside the deadband, and a capacity rider mechanism that would permit recovery of incremental capacity additions approved by the LPSC.

Following a hearing before an ALJ and the ALJ’s issuance of a Report of Proceedings, in December 2013 the LPSC approved an unopposed settlement of the proceeding. The settlement provided for a $10 million rate increase effective with the first billing cycle of December 2014. Major terms of the settlement included approval of a three-year formula rate plan (effective for test years 2014-2016) modeled after the formula rate plan in effect for Entergy Louisiana for 2011, including the following: (1) a midpoint return on equity of 9.95% plus or minus 80 basis points, with 60/40 sharing of earnings outside of the bandwidth; (2) recovery outside of the sharing mechanism for the non-fuel MISO-related costs, additional capacity revenue requirement, extraordinary items, such as the Ninemile 6 project, and certain special recovery items; (3) three-year amortization of costs to achieve savings associated with the human capital management strategic imperative, with savings reflected as they are realized in subsequent years; (4) eight-year amortization of costs incurred in connection with potential development of a new nuclear unit at River Bend, without carrying costs, beginning December 2014, provided, however, that amortization of these costs shall not result in a future rate increase; (5) recovery of non-fuel MISO-related costs and any changes to the additional capacity revenue requirement related to test year 2013 effective with the first billing cycle of December 2014; and (6) a cumulative $30 million cap on cost of service increases over the three-year formula rate plan cycle, except for those items outside of the sharing mechanism. Existing depreciation rates will not change.

Pursuant to the rate case settlement approved by the LPSC in December 2013, Entergy Louisiana submitted a compliance filing in May 2014 reflecting the effects of the $10 million agreed-upon increase in formula rate plan revenue, the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism revenue requirement, and the adjustment of the additional capacity mechanism. In November 2014, Entergy Louisiana submitted an additional compliance filing updating the estimated MISO cost recovery mechanism for the most recent actual data, as well as providing for a refund and prospective reduction in rates for the true-up of the estimated revenue requirement for the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project. Based on this updated filing, a net increase of $41.6 million in formula rate plan revenue to be collected over nine months was implemented in December 2014. The compliance filings are subject to LPSC review in accordance with the review process set forth in Entergy Louisiana’s formula rate plan. Additionally, the adjustments of rates made related to the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project included in the December 2014 compliance filing are subject to final true-up following completion of the LPSC’s determination regarding the prudence of the project. LPSC staff identified five issues, of which two remain. The remaining issues pertain to Entergy Louisiana’s method of collecting the agreed-upon $10 million increase and the level of recovery of investment related to the Grand Gulf uprate. No procedural schedule has been established, however, to address these remaining issues. The final issue raised by the LPSC staff pertains to the appropriate level of refunds related to the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project. That issue will be resolved in connection with the Waterford 3 prudence review proceedings discussed below.

Waterford 3 Replacement Steam Generator Project

Following the completion of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, the LPSC undertook a prudence review in connection with a filing made by Entergy Louisiana in April 2013 with regard to the following aspects of the replacement project: 1) project management; 2) cost controls; 3) success in achieving stated objectives; 4) the costs of the replacement project; and 5) the outage length and replacement power costs. In July 2014 the LPSC Staff filed testimony recommending potential project and replacement power cost disallowances of up to $71 million, citing a need for further explanation or documentation from Entergy Louisiana.  An intervenor filed testimony recommending disallowance of $141 million of incremental project costs, claiming the steam generator fabricator was imprudent.  Entergy Louisiana provided further documentation and explanation requested by the LPSC staff. An evidentiary hearing was held in December 2014. At the hearing the parties maintained the positions reflected in pre-filed testimony. Entergy Louisiana believes that the replacement steam generator costs were prudently incurred and applicable legal principles support their recovery in rates.  Nevertheless, Entergy Louisiana recorded a write-off of $16 million of Waterford 3’s plant balance in December 2014 because of the uncertainty at the time associated with the resolution of the prudence review. In December 2015 the ALJ issued a proposed recommendation, which was subsequently finalized, concluding that Entergy Louisiana prudently managed the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, including the selection, use, and oversight of contractors, and could not reasonably have anticipated the damage to the steam generators. Nevertheless, the ALJ concluded that Entergy Louisiana was liable for the conduct of its contractor and subcontractor and, therefore, recommended a disallowance of $67 million in capital costs. Additionally, the ALJ concluded that Entergy Louisiana did not sufficiently justify the incurrence of $2 million in replacement power costs during the replacement outage. Although the ALJ’s recommendation has yet to be considered by the LPSC, after considering the progress of the proceeding in light of the ALJ recommendation, Entergy Louisiana recorded in the fourth quarter 2015 approximately $77 million in charges, including a $45 million asset write-off and a $32 million regulatory charge, to reflect that a portion of the assets associated with the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project is no longer probable of recovery. Entergy Louisiana maintains that the ALJ’s recommendation contains significant factual and legal errors.

Ninemile 6

In July 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed stipulation with the LPSC that estimated a first year revenue requirement associated with Ninemile 6 and provided a mechanism to update the revenue requirement as the in-service date approached, which was subsequently approved by the LPSC. In late-December 2014, roughly contemporaneous with the unit's placement in service, a final updated estimated revenue requirement of $26.8 million for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and $51.1 million for Entergy Louisiana was filed. The December 2014 estimate forms the basis of rates implemented effective with the first billing cycle of January 2015. In July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a compliance filing including an estimate at completion, inclusive of interconnection costs and transmission upgrades, of approximately $648 million, or $76 million less than originally estimated, along with other project details and supporting evidence, to enable the LPSC to review the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s management of the project. A hearing is scheduled in March 2016.

Union Power Station

In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed its application with the LPSC for approval of the acquisition and cost recovery of two power blocks of the Union Power Station for an expected base purchase price of approximately $237 million per power block, subject to adjustments. In September 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana agreed to settlement terms with all parties for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s purchase of the two power blocks. In October 2015 the LPSC voted unanimously to approve the uncontested settlement which finds, among other things, that acquisition of Power Blocks 3 and 4 is in the public interest and, therefore, prudent. The business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana received regulatory approval and closed in October 2015 making Entergy Louisiana the named purchaser of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station.

Business Combination

In connection with the approval of the business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana, the LPSC authorized the filing of a single, joint formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. The joint evaluation report was filed in September 2015 and reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.09%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following adjustments are required under the formula rate plan, however: a decrease in the additional capacity mechanism for Entergy Louisiana of $17.8 million; an increase in the additional capacity mechanism for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana of $4.3 million; and a reduction of $5.5 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism, to collect approximately $35.7 million on a combined-company basis. Under the order approving the business combination, following completion of the prescribed review period, rates were implemented with the first billing cycle of December 2015, subject to refund. In November 2015, the LPSC staff filed objections, corrections, and comments identifying several issues for potential rate adjustments, including: preservation of previously-raised issues; the implementation of the $10 million increase in annual formula rate plan revenue over abbreviated rate-effective period; the level of adjustment to rates for the extended power uprate at System Energy, as well as asserting a general reservation of rights for further review of adjustments related to Ninemile 6 and the Waterford 3 provision for rate refund; change to gross plant, depreciation, and net plant components of rate base; regulatory debits and credits; adjustment for business combination expenses and the implementation of certain guaranteed customer credits. See “Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination” below for further discussion of the business combination.

Retail Rates - Gas

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

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

In accordance with the settlement of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2012, in August 2014 Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted for consideration a proposal for implementation of an infrastructure rider to recover expenditures associated with strategic plant investment and relocation projects mandated by local governments. After review by the LPSC staff and inclusion of certain customer safeguards required by the LPSC staff, in December 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the LPSC staff submitted a joint settlement for implementation of an accelerated gas pipe replacement program providing for the replacement of approximately 100 miles of pipe over the next ten years, as well as relocation of certain existing pipe resulting from local government-related infrastructure projects, and for a rider to recover the investment associated with these projects. The rider allows for recovery of approximately $65 million over ten years. The rider recovery will be adjusted on a quarterly basis to include actual investment incurred for the prior quarter and is subject to the following conditions, among others: a ten-year term; application of any earnings in excess of 10.45% as an offset to the revenue requirement of the infrastructure rider; adherence to a specified spending plan, within plus or minus 20% annually; annual filings comparing actual versus planned rider spending with actual spending and explanation of variances exceeding 10%; and an annual true-up. The joint settlement was approved by the LPSC in January 2015. Implementation of the infrastructure rider commenced with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of April 2015.

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 resulted 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 was implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015.

In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2015. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 10.22%, which is within the authorized bandwidth, therefore requiring no change in rates. Absent approval of an extension by the LPSC, test year 2015 is the final year under the current gas rate stabilization plan. In February 2016, however, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the terms of the gas rate stabilization plan for an additional three-year term.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Formula Rate Plan Filings

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

In June 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed its first general rate case before the MPSC in almost 12 years.  The rate filing laid out Entergy Mississippi’s plans for improving reliability, modernizing the grid, maintaining its workforce, stabilizing rates, utilizing new technologies, and attracting new industry to its service territory.  Entergy Mississippi requested a net increase in revenue of $49 million for bills rendered during calendar year 2015, including $30 million resulting from new depreciation rates to update the estimated service life of assets.  In addition, the filing proposed, among other things: 1) realigning cost recovery of the Attala and Hinds power plant acquisitions from the power management rider to base rates; 2) including certain MISO-related revenues and expenses in the power management rider; 3) power management rider changes that reflect the changes in costs and revenues that will accompany Entergy Mississippi’s withdrawal from participation in the System Agreement; and 4) a formula rate plan forward test year to allow for known changes in expenses and revenues for the rate effective period.  Entergy Mississippi proposed maintaining the current authorized return on common equity of 10.59%. 

In October 2014, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into and filed joint stipulations that addressed the majority of issues in the proceeding. The stipulations provided for:

• an approximate $16 million net increase in revenues, which reflected an agreed upon 10.07% return on common equity;

• revision of Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan by providing Entergy Mississippi with the ability to reflect known and measurable changes to historical rate base and certain expense amounts; resolving uncertainty around and obviating the need for an additional rate filing in connection with Entergy Mississippi’s withdrawal from participation in the System Agreement; updating depreciation rates; and moving costs associated with the Attala and Hinds generating plants from the power management rider to base rates;

• recovery of non-fuel MISO-related costs through a separate rider for that purpose;

• a deferral of $6 million in other operation and maintenance expenses associated with the Baxter Wilson outage and a determination that the regulatory asset should accrue carrying costs, with amortization of the regulatory asset over two years beginning in February 2015, and a provision that the capital costs will be reflected in rate base. See Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Baxter Wilson outage; and

• consolidation of the new nuclear generation development costs proceeding with the general rate case proceeding for hearing purposes and a determination that Entergy Mississippi would not further pursue, except as noted below, recovery of the costs that were approved for deferral by the MPSC in November 2011. The stipulations state, however, that, if Entergy Mississippi decides to move forward with nuclear development in Mississippi, it can at that time re-present for consideration by the MPSC only those costs directly associated with the existing early site permit (ESP), to the extent that the costs are verifiable and prudent and the ESP is still valid and relevant to any such option pursued. See “New Nuclear Generation Development Costs - Entergy Mississippi” below for further discussion of the new nuclear generation development costs proceeding and subsequent write-off in 2014 of the regulatory asset related to those costs.

In December 2014 the MPSC issued an order accepting the stipulations in their entirety and approving the revenue adjustments and rate changes effective with February 2015 bills.

Filings with the City Council

(Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans)

In March 2013, Entergy Louisiana filed a rate case for the Algiers area, which is in New Orleans and is regulated by the City Council. Entergy Louisiana requested a rate increase of $13 million over three years, including a 10.4% return on common equity and a formula rate plan mechanism identical to its LPSC request. In January 2014 the City Council Advisors filed direct testimony recommending a rate increase of $5.56 million over three years, including an 8.13% return on common equity. In June 2014 the City Council unanimously approved a settlement that includes the following:

• a $9.3 million base rate revenue increase to be phased in on a levelized basis over four years;

• recovery of an additional $853 thousand annually through a MISO recovery rider; and

• the adoption of a four-year formula rate plan requiring the filing of annual evaluation reports in May of each year, commencing May 2015, with resulting rates being implemented in October of each year. The formula rate plan includes a midpoint target authorized return on common equity of 9.95% with a +/- 40 basis point bandwidth.

The rate increase was effective with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of July 2014. Additional compliance filings were made with the Council in October 2014 for approval of the form of certain rate riders, including among others, a Ninemile 6 non-fuel cost recovery interim rider, allowing for contemporaneous recovery of capacity costs related to the commencement of commercial operation of the Ninemile 6 generating unit and a purchased power capacity cost recovery rider. The monthly Ninemile 6 cost recovery interim rider was implemented in December 2014 to initially collect $915 thousand from Entergy Louisiana customers in the Algiers area. See “Algiers Asset Transfer ” below for discussion of the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that serve Algiers customers.

(Entergy New Orleans)

Formula Rate Plan

In April 2009 the City Council approved a three-year formula rate plan for Entergy New Orleans, with terms including an 11.1% benchmark electric return on common equity (ROE) with a +/-40 basis point bandwidth and a 10.75% benchmark gas ROE with a +/-50 basis point bandwidth.  Earnings outside the bandwidth reset to the midpoint benchmark ROE, with rates changing on a prospective basis depending on whether Entergy New Orleans was over- or under-earning.  The formula rate plan also included a recovery mechanism for City Council-approved capacity additions, plus provisions for extraordinary cost changes and force majeure events.

In May 2012, Entergy New Orleans filed its electric and gas formula rate plan evaluation reports for the 2011 test year.  Subsequent adjustments agreed upon with the City Council Advisors indicate a $4.9 million electric base revenue increase and a $0.05 million gas base revenue increase as necessary under the formula rate plan.  As part of the original filing, Entergy New Orleans also requested to increase annual funding for its storm reserve by approximately $5.7 million for five years.  On September 26, 2012, Entergy New Orleans made a filing with the City Council that implemented the $4.9 million electric formula rate plan rate increase and the $0.05 million gas formula rate plan rate increase.  The new rates were effective with the first billing cycle in October 2012.  In August 2013 the City Council unanimously approved a settlement of all issues in the formula rate plan proceeding.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Entergy New Orleans implemented an approximately $1.625 million net decrease to the electric rates that were in effect prior to the electric rate increase implemented in October 2012, with no change in gas rates.  Entergy New Orleans refunded to customers approximately $6 million over the four-month period from September 2013 through December 2013 to make the electric rate decrease effective as of the first billing cycle of October 2012.  Entergy New Orleans had previously recorded provisions for the majority of the refund to customers, but recorded an additional $1.1 million provision in second quarter 2013 as a result of the settlement. Entergy New Orleans’s formula rate plan ended with the 2011 test year and has not been extended.  

See “Algiers Asset Transfer ” below for discussion of the Algiers asset transfer. As a provision of the settlement agreement approved by the City Council in May 2015 providing for the Algiers asset transfer, it was agreed that, with limited exceptions, no action may be taken with respect to Entergy New Orleans’s base rates until rates are implemented from a base rate case that must be filed for its electric and gas operations in 2018. This provision eliminated the formula rate plan applicable to Algiers operations. The limited exceptions include continued implementation of the remaining two years of the four-year phased-in rate increase for its operations in the Algiers area and certain exceptional cost increases or decreases in its base revenue requirement. An additional provision of the settlement agreement allows for continued recovery of the revenue requirement associated with the capacity and energy from Ninemile 6 received by Entergy New Orleans under a power purchase agreement with Entergy Louisiana (Algiers PPA). The settlement authorizes Entergy New Orleans to recover the remaining revenue requirement related to the Algiers PPA through base rates charged to Algiers customers. The settlement also provided for continued implementation of the Algiers MISO recovery rider.

In addition to the Algiers PPA, Entergy New Orleans has a separate power purchase agreement with Entergy Louisiana for 20% of the capacity and energy of the Ninemile Unit 6 generating station (Ninemile PPA), which commenced operation in December 2014. Initially, recovery of the non-fuel costs associated with the Ninemile PPA was authorized through a special Ninemile 6 rider billed to only Entergy New Orleans customers outside of Algiers.

In August 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to proceed with the acquisition of Union Power Block 1, with an expected base purchase price of approximately $237 million, subject to adjustments, and seeking approval of the recovery of the associated costs. In November 2015 the City Council issued written resolutions and an order approving an agreement in principle between Entergy New Orleans and City Council advisors providing that the purchase of Union Power Block 1 and related assets by Entergy New Orleans is prudent and in the public interest. The City Council authorized expansion of the special Ninemile 6 rider, discussed above, to cover the non-fuel purchased power from Ninemile 6 as well as the revenue requirement associated with the acquisition of Union Power Block 1, upon closing of the transaction.

A 2008 rate case settlement included $3.1 million per year in electric rates to fund the Energy Smart energy efficiency programs.  In September 2009 the City Council approved the energy efficiency programs filed by Entergy New Orleans.  The rate settlement provides an incentive for Entergy New Orleans to meet or exceed energy savings targets set by the City Council and provides a mechanism for Entergy New Orleans to recover lost contribution to fixed costs associated with the energy savings generated from the energy efficiency programs. In October 2013 the City Council approved the extension of the current Energy Smart program through December 2014. The City Council approved the use of $3.5 million of rough production cost equalization funds for program costs. In addition, Entergy New Orleans will be allowed to recover its lost contribution to fixed costs and to earn an incentive for meeting program goals. In January 2015 the City Council approved extending the Energy Smart program through March 2015 and using $1.2 million of rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs for the extended period. Additionally, the City Council approved funding for the Energy Smart 2 programs from April 2015 through March 2017 using the remainder of the approximately $12.8 million of 2014 rough production cost equalization funds, and with any remaining costs being recovered through the fuel adjustment clause. This funding methodology was modified in November 2015 when the City Council directed Entergy New Orleans to use a combination of guaranteed customer savings related to a prior agreement with the City Council and rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs prior to recovering any costs through the fuel adjustment clause.

Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas)

Retail Rates

2011 Rate Case

In November 2011, Entergy Texas filed a rate case requesting a $112 million base rate increase reflecting a 10.6% return on common equity based on an adjusted June 2011 test year.  The rate case also proposed a purchased power recovery rider.  On January 12, 2012, the PUCT voted not to address the purchased power recovery rider in the current rate case, but the PUCT voted to set a baseline in the rate case proceeding that would be applicable if a purchased power capacity rider is approved in a separate proceeding.  In April 2012 the PUCT Staff filed direct testimony recommending a base rate increase of $66 million and a 9.6% return on common equity.  The PUCT Staff, however, subsequently filed a statement of position in the proceeding indicating that it was still evaluating the position it would ultimately take in the case regarding Entergy Texas’s recovery of purchased power capacity costs and Entergy Texas’s proposal to defer its MISO transition expenses.  In April 2012, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony indicating a revised request for a $105 million base rate increase.  A hearing was held in late-April through early-May 2012.

In September 2012 the PUCT issued an order approving a $28 million rate increase, effective July 2012.  The order includes a finding that “a return on common equity (ROE) of 9.80 percent will allow [Entergy Texas] a reasonable opportunity to earn a reasonable return on invested capital.”  The order also provides for increases in depreciation rates and the annual storm reserve accrual.  The order also reduced Entergy Texas’s proposed purchased power capacity costs, stating that they are not known and measurable; reduced Entergy Texas’s regulatory assets associated with Hurricane Rita; excluded from rate recovery capitalized financially-based incentive compensation; included $1.6 million of MISO transition expense in base rates, and reduced Entergy’s Texas’s fuel reconciliation recovery by $4 million because it disagreed with the line-loss factor used in the calculation.  After considering the progress of the proceeding in light of the PUCT order, Entergy Texas recorded in the third quarter 2012 an approximate $24 million charge to recognize that assets associated with Hurricane Rita, financially-based incentive compensation, and fuel recovery are no longer probable of recovery.  Entergy Texas continues to believe that it is entitled to recover these prudently incurred costs, however, and it filed a motion for rehearing regarding these and several other issues in the PUCT’s order on October 4, 2012.  Several other parties also filed motions for rehearing of the PUCT’s order.  The PUCT subsequently denied rehearing of substantive issues.  Several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. A hearing was held in July 2014. In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced above, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Briefs were filed by the appealing and responding parties in the first half of 2015. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. The appeal is currently pending.

2013 Rate Case

In September 2013, Entergy Texas filed a rate case requesting a $38.6 million base rate increase reflecting a 10.4% return on common equity based on an adjusted test year ending March 31, 2013. The rate case also proposed (1) a rough production cost equalization adjustment rider recovering Entergy Texas’s payment to Entergy New Orleans to achieve rough production cost equalization based on calendar year 2012 production costs and (2) a rate case expense rider recovering the cost of the 2013 rate case and certain costs associated with previous rate cases. The rate case filing also included a request to reconcile $0.9 billion of fuel and purchased power costs and fuel revenues covering the period July 2011 through March 2013. The fuel reconciliation also reflects special circumstances fuel cost recovery of approximately $22 million of purchased power capacity costs. In January 2014 the PUCT staff filed direct testimony recommending a retail rate reduction of $0.3 million and a 9.2% return on common equity. In March 2014, Entergy Texas filed an Agreed Motion for Interim Rates. The motion explained that the parties to this proceeding have agreed that Entergy Texas should be allowed to implement new rates reflecting an $18.5 million base rate increase, effective for usage on and after April 1, 2014, as well as recovery of charges for rough production cost equalization and rate case expenses. In March 2014 the State Office of Administrative Hearings, the body assigned to hear the case, approved the motion. In April 2014, Entergy Texas filed a unanimous stipulation in this case. Among other things, the stipulation provides for an $18.5 million base rate increase, provides for recovery over three years of the calendar year 2012 rough production cost equalization charges and rate case expenses, and states a 9.8% return on common equity. In addition, the stipulation finalizes the fuel and purchased power reconciliation covering the period July 2011 through March 2013, with the parties stipulating an immaterial fuel disallowance. No special circumstances recovery of purchased power capacity costs was allowed. In April 2014 the State Office of Administrative Hearings remanded the case back to the PUCT for final processing. In May 2014 the PUCT approved the stipulation. No motions for rehearing were filed during the statutory rehearing period.

2015 Rate Case

In June 2015, Entergy Texas filed a rate case that included pro forma adjustments to reflect the proposed acquisition of Union Power Station Power Block 1, which is one of four units that comprise the Union Power Station near El Dorado, Arkansas. Previously in 2015 Entergy Texas made a filing with the PUCT requesting that it grant a certificate of convenience and necessity for the Union acquisition. In July 2015 the PUCT requested briefing on legal and policy issues related to, among other things, the propriety of rate recovery for the Union Power transaction given the uncertainty of the actual closing date of the transaction and the commencement of the rate year, as well as Entergy Texas’s requirement for acceptable rate treatment as a condition to closing the transaction. Also in July 2015, in connection with the requested briefing, the PUCT staff and certain parties filed briefs concluding that Entergy Texas should not be permitted recovery for the Union Power Station purchase in the rate case. Based on the opposition to the acquisition of the power block, Entergy Texas determined it was appropriate to seek to dismiss the certificate of convenience and necessity filing and withdraw the rate case. In July 2015, Entergy Texas filed its notice of withdrawal of its base rate case and the ALJs in the case dismissed the case from the dockets of the State Office of Administrative Hearings and the PUCT. In the third quarter 2015, Entergy Texas wrote off $4.7 million in rate case expenses and acquisition costs related to the proposed Union Power Station acquisition.

Other Filings

In September 2014, Entergy Texas filed for a distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider based on a law that was passed in 2011 allowing for the recovery of increases in capital costs associated with distribution plant. Entergy Texas requested collection of approximately $7 million annually from retail customers. The parties reached a unanimous settlement authorizing recovery of $3.6 million annually commencing with usage on and after January 1, 2015. A State Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ issued an order in December 2014 authorizing this recovery on an interim basis and remanded the case to the PUCT. In February 2015 the PUCT entered a final order, making the settlement final and the interim rates permanent. In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed to amend its distribution cost recovery factor rider. Entergy Texas requested an increase in recovery under the rider of $6.5 million, for a total collection of $10.1 million annually from retail customers. In October 2015 intervenors and PUCT staff filed testimony opposing, in part, Entergy Texas’s request. In November 2015 Entergy Texas and the parties filed an unopposed settlement agreement and supporting documents. The settlement established an annual revenue requirement of $8.65 million for the amended DCRF rider, with the resulting rates effective for usage on and after January 1, 2016. The PUCT approved the settlement agreement in February 2016.

In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony was filed in November 2015, with the PUCT staff and other parties proposing various disallowances that would reduce the requested increase. The largest remaining single disallowance is $3.4 million which would impose a load growth adjustment on Entergy Texas’s TCRF rider. A hearing on the merits was held in December 2015. A proposal for decision from the ALJ is expected in first quarter 2016.

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination

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 application, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana identified potential benefits, including enhanced economic and customer diversity, enhanced geographic and supply diversity, and greater administrative efficiency. In the initial proceedings with the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana estimated that the business combination could produce up to $128 million in measurable customer benefits during the first ten years following the transaction’s close including proposed guaranteed customer credits of $97 million in the first nine years.  In April 2015 the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony in the LPSC business combination proceeding. The testimony recommended an extensive set of conditions that would be required in order to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The LPSC staff’s primary concern appeared to be potential shifting in fuel costs between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. In May 2015, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony. After the testimony was filed with the LPSC, the parties engaged in settlement discussions that ultimately led to the execution of an uncontested stipulated settlement (“stipulated settlement”), which was filed with the LPSC in July 2015. Through the stipulated settlement, the parties agreed to terms upon which to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The stipulated settlement, which was either joined, or unopposed, by all parties to the LPSC proceeding, represents a compromise of stakeholder positions and was the result of an extensive period of analysis, discovery, and negotiation. The stipulated settlement provides $107 million in guaranteed customer benefits during the first nine years following the transaction’s close. Additionally, the combined company will honor the 2013 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana rate case settlements, including the commitments that (1) there will be no rate increase for legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers for the 2014 test year, and (2) through the 2016 test year formula rate plan, Entergy Louisiana (as a combined entity) will not raise rates by more than $30 million, net of the $10 million rate increase included in the Entergy Louisiana legacy formula rate plan. The stipulated settlement also describes the process for implementing a fuel-tracking mechanism that is designed to address potential effects arising from the shifting of fuel costs between legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers as a result of the combination of those companies’ fuel adjustment clauses. Specifically, the fuel tracker would reallocate such cost shifts as between legacy customers of the companies on an after-the-fact basis, and the calculation of the fuel tracker will be submitted annually in a compliance filing. The stipulated settlement also provides that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana are permitted to defer certain external costs that were incurred to achieve the business combination’s customer benefits. The deferred amount, which shall not exceed $25 million, will be subject to a prudence review and amortized over a 10-year period. In 2015 deferrals of $16 million for these external costs were recorded. A hearing on the stipulated settlement in the LPSC proceeding was held in July 2015. In August 2015 the LPSC approved the business combination.

In April 2015 the FERC approved applications requesting authorization for the business combination. In August 2015 the NRC approved the applications for the River Bend and Waterford 3 license transfers as part of the steps to complete the business combination.

On October 1, 2015, the businesses formerly conducted by Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana were combined into a single public utility. With the completion of the business combination, Entergy Louisiana holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed the liabilities, of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The combination was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control. The effect of the business combination has been retrospectively applied to Entergy Louisiana's financial statements that are presented in this report. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the customer credits resulting from the business combination.

Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans)

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 supported the provision of service to Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers assets transfer. In May 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement authorizing the Algiers assets transfer and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in May 2015. On September 1, 2015, Entergy Louisiana transferred its Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans for a purchase price of approximately $85 million, subject to closing adjustments. Entergy New Orleans paid Entergy Louisiana $59.6 million, including final true-ups, from available cash and issued a note payable to Entergy Louisiana in the amount of $25.5 million. See Note 1 to the financial statements for a discussion of the accounting for the Algiers asset transfer and the basis of presentation for the Entergy New Orleans’s financial statements presented in this report.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

The Utility operating companies historically have engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which is a rate schedule that has been approved by the FERC.  Certain of the Utility operating companies’ retail regulators and other parties are pursuing litigation involving the System Agreement at the FERC.  The proceedings include challenges to the allocation of costs as defined by the System Agreement and allegations of imprudence by the Utility operating companies in their execution of their obligations under the System Agreement.

In June 2005 the FERC issued a decision in System Agreement litigation that had been commenced by the LPSC, and essentially affirmed its decision in a December 2005 order on rehearing.  The FERC decision concluded, among other things, that:

• The System Agreement no longer roughly equalizes total production costs among the Utility operating companies.

• In order to reach rough production cost equalization, the FERC imposed a bandwidth remedy by which each company’s total annual production costs will have to be within +/- 11% of Entergy System average total annual production costs.

• In calculating the production costs for this purpose under the FERC’s order, output from the Vidalia hydroelectric power plant will not reflect the actual Vidalia price for the year but is priced at that year’s average price paid by Entergy Louisiana for the exchange of electric energy under Service Schedule MSS-3 of the System Agreement, thereby reducing the amount of Vidalia costs reflected in the comparison of the Utility operating companies’ total production costs.

• The remedy ordered by FERC in 2005 required no refunds and became effective based on calendar year 2006 production costs and the first reallocation payments were made in 2007.

The FERC’s decision reallocates total production costs of the Utility operating companies whose relative total production costs expressed as a percentage of Entergy System average production costs are outside an upper or lower bandwidth.  Under the current circumstances, this will be accomplished by payments from Utility operating companies whose production costs are more than 11% below Entergy System average production costs to Utility operating companies whose production costs are more than the Entergy System average production cost, with payments going first to those Utility operating companies whose total production costs are farthest above the Entergy System average.

The financial consequences of the FERC’s decision are determined by the total production cost of each Utility operating company, which are affected by the mix of solid fuel and gas-fired generation available to each company and the costs of natural gas and purchased power.  Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Texas, and Entergy Mississippi are more dependent upon gas-fired generation sources than Entergy Arkansas or Entergy New Orleans.  Of these, Entergy Arkansas is the least dependent upon gas-fired generation sources.  Therefore, increases in natural gas prices generally increased the amount by which Entergy Arkansas’s total production costs were below the Entergy System average production costs.

The LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers appealed the FERC’s December 2005 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  Entergy and the City of New Orleans intervened in the various appeals.  The D.C. Circuit issued its decision in April 2008.  The D.C. Circuit concluded that the FERC’s orders had failed to adequately explain both its conclusion that it was prohibited from ordering refunds for the 20-month period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003 and its determination to implement the bandwidth remedy commencing on January 1, 2006, rather than June 1, 2005.  The D.C. Circuit remanded the case to the FERC for further proceedings on these issues.

In October 2011, the FERC issued an order addressing the D.C. Circuit remand on these two issues.  On the first issue, the FERC concluded that it did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-month period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003.  Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, which is discussed in a separate section below, the FERC concluded that the refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in that proceeding.  On the second issue, the FERC reversed its prior decision and ordered that the prospective bandwidth remedy begin on June 1, 2005 (the date of its initial order in the proceeding) rather than January 1, 2006, as it had previously ordered.  Pursuant to the October 2011 order, Entergy was required to calculate the additional bandwidth payments for the period June - December 2005 utilizing the bandwidth formula tariff prescribed by the FERC that was filed in a December 2006 compliance filing and accepted by the FERC in an April 2007 order.  As is the case with bandwidth remedy payments, these payments and receipts will ultimately be paid by Utility operating company customers to other Utility operating company customers. 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 an 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. In October 2015 the FERC issued three orders related to the commencement of the remedy on June 1, 2005 and the inclusion of interest on the amount for the period June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. Specifically, the FERC rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of its decision to include interest on the amount for the seven-month period. The FERC also rejected Entergy Services’s request for rehearing of the order rejecting the compliance filing with regard to the issue of interest. Finally, the FERC set for hearing and settlement procedures the 2014 compliance filing that included the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. In setting the compliance filing for hearing, the FERC rejected the APSC’s protest that Entergy Arkansas should not be subject to the filing because Entergy Arkansas would be making the payments during a period following its exit from the System Agreement. The hearing on the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 is scheduled to occur in July 2016.

In December 2011, Entergy filed with the FERC its compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s October 2011 order.  The filing shows the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$156
Entergy Louisiana	($75)
Entergy Mississippi	($33)
Entergy New Orleans	($5)
Entergy Texas	($43)

Entergy Arkansas made its payment in January 2012.  In February 2012, Entergy Arkansas filed for an interim adjustment to its production cost allocation rider requesting that the $156 million payment be collected from customers over the 22-month period from March 2012 through December 2013.  In March 2012 the APSC issued an order stating that the payment can be recovered from retail customers through the production cost allocation rider, subject to refund.  The LPSC and the APSC have requested rehearing of the FERC’s October 2011 order.  In December 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for a writ of mandamus at the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In its petition, the LPSC requested that the D.C. Circuit issue an order compelling the FERC to issue a final order on pending rehearing requests. In January 2014 the D.C. Circuit denied the LPSC’s petition. The APSC, the LPSC, the PUCT, and other parties intervened in the December 2011 compliance filing proceeding, and the APSC and the LPSC also filed protests.

In February 2014 the FERC issued a rehearing order addressing its October 2011 order. The FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing on the issues of whether the bandwidth remedy should be made effective earlier than June 1, 2005, and whether refunds should be ordered for the 20-month refund effective period. The FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request on the issue of interest on the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period, requiring that interest be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date those bandwidth payments/receipts are made. Also in February 2014 the FERC issued an order rejecting the December 2011 compliance filing that calculated the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. The FERC order required a new compliance filing that calculates the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period based on monthly data for the seven individual months including interest pursuant to the February 2014 rehearing order. Entergy has sought rehearing of the February 2014 orders with respect to the FERC’s determinations regarding interest. In April 2014 the LPSC filed a petition for review of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The appeal is pending.

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

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$68
Entergy Louisiana	($10)
Entergy Mississippi	($11)
Entergy New Orleans	$2
Entergy Texas	($49)

These payments were made in May 2014. The LPSC, City Council, and APSC have filed protests.

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

Each May since 2007 Entergy has filed with the FERC the rates to implement the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  These filings show the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies are necessary to achieve rough production cost equalization as defined by the FERC’s orders:

	Payments (Receipts)
	2007			2008			2009			2010			2011			2012			2013			2014
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas		$252			$252			$390			$41			$77			$41			$—			$—
Entergy Louisiana		($211	)		($160	)		($247	)		($22	)		($12	)		($41	)		$—			$—
Entergy Mississippi		($41	)		($20	)		($24	)		($19	)		($40	)		$—			$—			$—
Entergy New Orleans		$—			($7	)		$—			$—			($25	)		$—			($15	)		($15	)
Entergy Texas		($30	)		($65	)		($119	)		$—			$—			$—			$15			$15

The Utility operating companies record, as necessary, accounts payable or accounts receivable to reflect the rough production cost equalization payments and receipts required to implement the FERC’s remedy.  When accounts payable are recorded, a corresponding regulatory asset is recorded for the right to collect the payments from customers. When accounts receivable are recorded, a corresponding regulatory liability is recorded for the obligations to pass the receipts on to customers.  As discussed below, no payments and receipts were required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Entergy Arkansas ceased participating in the System Agreement on December 18, 2013 and was not part of the calendar year 2013 or 2014 production costs calculations.

The APSC has approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Texas is recovering its 2013 rough production cost equalization payment over three years beginning April 2014. Entergy Texas included its 2014 rough production cost equalization payment as component of an interim fuel refund made in 2014. Management believes that any changes in the allocation of production costs resulting from the FERC’s decision and related retail proceedings should result in similar rate changes for retail customers, subject to specific circumstances that have caused trapped costs.  

Comprehensive Bandwidth Recalculation for 2007, 2008, and 2009 Rate Filing Proceedings

In July 2014 the FERC issued four orders in connection with various Service Schedule MSS-3 rough production cost equalization formula compliance filings and rehearing requests. Specifically, the FERC accepted Entergy Services’ revised methodologies for calculating certain cost components of the formula and affirmed its prior ruling requiring interest on the true-up amounts. The FERC directed that a comprehensive recalculation of the formula be performed for the filing years 2007, 2008, and 2009 based on calendar years 2006, 2007, and 2008 production costs. In September 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC its compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts, including interest, among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s orders for the 2007, 2008, and 2009 rate filing proceedings. The filing shows the following additional payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$38
Entergy Louisiana	($38)
Entergy Mississippi	$16
Entergy New Orleans	($1)
Entergy Texas	($15)

Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi made the payments in September and October 2014.

The FERC proceedings that resulted from rate filings made in 2007, 2008, and 2009 have been resolved by various orders issued by the FERC and appellate courts. See below for a discussion of rate filings since 2009 and the comprehensive recalculation filing directed by the FERC in the proceeding related to the 2010 rate filing.

2010 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2009 Production Costs

In May 2010, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2010 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding, and supplemented the filing in September 2010.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC and the City Council, which also filed protests.  In July 2010 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2010, subject to refund, and set the proceeding for hearing and settlement procedures.  Settlement procedures have been terminated, and the ALJ scheduled hearings to begin in March 2011.  Subsequently, in January 2011 the ALJ issued an order directing the parties and FERC Staff to show cause why this proceeding should not be stayed pending the issuance of FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review.  In March 2011 the ALJ issued an order placing this proceeding in abeyance. In October 2013 the FERC issued an order granting clarification and denying rehearing with respect to its October 2011 rehearing order in this proceeding. The FERC clarified that in a bandwidth proceeding parties can challenge erroneous inputs, implementation errors, or prudence of cost inputs, but challenges to the bandwidth formula itself must be raised in a Federal Power Act section 206 complaint or section 205 filing. Subsequently in October 2013 the presiding ALJ lifted the stay order holding in abeyance the hearing previously ordered by the FERC and directing that the remaining issues proceed to a hearing on the merits. The hearing was held in March 2014 and the presiding ALJ issued an initial decision in September 2014. Briefs on exception were filed in October 2014. In December 2015 the FERC issued an order affirming the initial decision in part and rejecting the initial decision in part. Among other things, the December 2015 order directs Entergy Services to submit a compliance filing, the results of which may affect the rough production cost equalization filings made for the June - December 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 test periods. In January 2016 the LPSC, the APSC, and Entergy Services filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s December 2015 order. In February 2016, Entergy Services submitted the compliance filing ordered in the December 2015 order.  The result of the true-up payments and receipts for the recalculation of production costs resulted in the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$2
Entergy Louisiana	$6
Entergy Mississippi	($4)
Entergy New Orleans	($1)
Entergy Texas	($3)

2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs

In May 2011, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2011 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest.  In July 2011 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2011, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review. In January 2014 the LPSC filed a petition for a writ of mandamus at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In its petition, the LPSC requested that the Fifth Circuit issue an order compelling the FERC to issue a final order in several proceedings related to the System Agreement, including the 2011 rate filing based on calendar year 2010 production costs and the 2012 and 2013 rate filings discussed below. In March 2014 the Fifth Circuit rejected the LPSC’s petition for a writ of mandamus. In December 2014 the FERC rescinded its earlier abeyance order and consolidated the 2011 rate filing with the 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs

In May 2012, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2012 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest.  In August 2012 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 2012, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review. In December 2014 the FERC rescinded its earlier abeyance order and consolidated the 2012 rate filing with the 2011, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs

In May 2013, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2013 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest. The City Council intervened and filed comments related to including the outcome of a related FERC proceeding in the 2013 cost equalization calculation. In August 2013 the FERC issued an order accepting the 2013 rates, effective June 1, 2013, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review. In December 2014 the FERC rescinded its earlier abeyance order and consolidated the 2013 Rate Filing with the 2011, 2012, and 2014 Rate Filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs

In May 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2014 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest. The City Council intervened and filed comments. In December 2014 the FERC issued an order accepting the 2014 rates, effective June 1, 2014, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and consolidated the 2014 Rate Filing with the 2011, 2012, and 2013 Rate Filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

Consolidated 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Rate Filing Proceedings

As discussed above, in December 2014 the FERC consolidated the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. 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. In July 2015 the parties filed direct and answering testimony. Among other issues with the pending bandwidth calculations, the LPSC challenged the administration of the accounting for joint account sales of energy in the intra-system bill. In August and September 2015 the parties filed additional rounds of testimony in the consolidated hearing for the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings. In October 2015 the LPSC withdrew its testimony challenging the accounting for joint account sales of energy. The hearings occurred in November 2015, and an initial decision from the ALJ is expected in July 2016.

2015 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2014 Production Costs

In May 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2015 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing showed that no payments and receipts were required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC and City Council intervened and filed comments. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2015 rates for filing, suspended them for a nominal period, to become effective June 1, 2015, as requested, subject to refund, and set them for hearing and settlement judge procedures.

Calendar Year 2015 Production Costs

Entergy preliminarily estimates that no payments and receipts are required in 2016 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2015 production costs. The actual payments/receipts for 2016, based on calendar year 2015 production costs, will not be calculated until the Utility operating companies’ 2015 FERC Form 1s have been filed. Once the calculation is completed, it will be filed at the FERC. The level of any payments and receipts is significantly affected by a number of factors, including, among others, weather, the price of alternative fuels, the operating characteristics of the Entergy System generating fleet, and multiple factors affecting the calculation of the non-fuel related revenue requirement components of the total production costs, such as plant investment. The calculation based on 2015 production costs will be the last rough production cost equalization filing submitted by the Utility operating companies because the System Agreement will terminate at the end of August 2016.

Utility Operating Company Termination of System Agreement Participation

Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi ceased participating in the System Agreement effective December 18, 2013 and November 7, 2015, respectively. Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas will terminate participation in the System Agreement on August 31, 2016, which will result in the termination of the System Agreement in its entirety pursuant to a settlement agreement approved by the FERC in December 2015.

In connection with the System Agreement termination settlement agreement, it was determined that the purchase power agreements, referred to as the jurisdictional separation plan PPAs, between Entergy Texas and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana that were put in place for certain legacy gas units at the time of Entergy Gulf States’s separation into Entergy Texas and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana will terminate effective with System Agreement termination. Similarly, the PPA between Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Texas for the Calcasieu unit also will terminate. Currently, the jurisdictional separation plan PPAs are the means by which Entergy Texas receives payment for its receivable associated with Entergy Louisiana’s Spindletop gas storage facility regulatory asset. As a result of the System Agreement termination settlement agreement, effective with the termination date, Entergy Texas will no longer receive payments from Entergy Louisiana related to the Spindletop storage facility which resulted in a write-off recorded in 2015 by Entergy Texas of $23.5 million ($15.3 million net-of-tax).

Interruptible Load Proceeding

In April 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in the LPSC’s appeal of the FERC’s March 2004 and April 2005 orders related to the treatment under the System Agreement of the Utility operating companies’ interruptible loads.  In its opinion the D.C. Circuit concluded that the FERC (1) acted arbitrarily and capriciously by allowing the Utility operating companies to phase-in the effects of the elimination of the interruptible load over a 12-month period of time; (2) failed to adequately explain why refunds could not be ordered under Section 206(c) of the Federal Power Act; and (3) exercised appropriately its discretion to defer addressing the cost of sulfur dioxide allowances until a later time.  The D.C. Circuit remanded the matter to the FERC for a more considered determination on the issue of refunds.  The FERC issued its order on remand in September 2007, in which it directed Entergy to make a compliance filing removing all interruptible load from the computation of peak load responsibility commencing April 1, 2004 and to issue any necessary refunds to reflect this change.  In addition, the order directed the Utility operating companies to make refunds for the period May 1995 through July 1996.  In November 2007 the Utility operating companies filed a refund report describing the refunds to be issued pursuant to the FERC’s orders.  The LPSC filed a protest to the refund report in December 2007, and the Utility operating companies filed an answer to the protest in January 2008.  The refunds were made in October 2008 by the Utility operating companies that owed refunds to the Utility operating companies that were due a refund under the decision.  The APSC and the Utility operating companies appealed the FERC decisions to the D.C. Circuit.   

Following the filing of petitioners’ initial briefs, the FERC filed a motion requesting the D.C. Circuit hold the appeal of the FERC’s decisions ordering refunds in the interruptible load proceeding in abeyance and remand the record to the FERC.  The D.C. Circuit granted the FERC’s unopposed motion in June 2009.  In December 2009 the FERC established a paper hearing to determine whether the FERC had the authority and, if so, whether it would be appropriate to order refunds resulting from changes in the treatment of interruptible load in the allocation of capacity costs by the Utility operating companies.  In August 2010 the FERC issued an order stating that it has the authority and refunds are appropriate.  The APSC, MPSC, and Entergy requested rehearing of the FERC’s decision.  In June 2011 the FERC issued an order granting rehearing in part and denying rehearing in part, in which the FERC determined to invoke its discretion to deny refunds.  The FERC held that in this case where “the Entergy system as a whole collected the proper level of revenue, but, as was later established, incorrectly allocated peak load responsibility among the various Entergy operating companies….the Commission will apply here our usual practice in such cases, invoking our equitable discretion to not order refunds, notwithstanding our authority to do so.”  The LPSC has requested rehearing of the FERC’s June 2011 decision.  In July 2011 the refunds made in the fourth quarter 2009 described above were reversed. In October 2011 the FERC issued an “Order Establishing Paper Hearing” inviting parties that oppose refunds to file briefs within 30 days addressing the LPSC’s argument that FERC precedent supports refunds under the circumstances present in this proceeding.  Parties that favor refunds were then invited to file reply briefs within 21 days of the date that the initial briefs are due.  Briefs were submitted and the matter is pending.

In September 2010 the FERC had issued an order setting the refund report filed in the proceeding in November 2007 for hearing and settlement judge procedures.  In May 2011, Entergy filed a settlement agreement that resolved all issues relating to the refund report set for hearing.  In June 2011 the settlement judge certified the settlement as uncontested and the settlement agreement is currently pending before the FERC.  In July 2011, Entergy filed an amended/corrected refund report and a motion to defer action on the settlement agreement until after the FERC rules on the LPSC’s rehearing request regarding the June 2011 decision denying refunds.

Prior to the FERC’s June 2011 order on rehearing, Entergy Arkansas filed an application in November 2010 with the APSC for recovery of the refund that it paid.  The APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s application, and also denied Entergy Arkansas’s petition for rehearing.  If the FERC were to order Entergy Arkansas to pay refunds on rehearing in the interruptible load proceeding the APSC’s decision would trap FERC-approved costs at Entergy Arkansas with no regulatory-approved mechanism to recover them.  In August 2011, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas asking for a declaratory judgment that the rejection of Entergy Arkansas’s application by the APSC is preempted by the Federal Power Act.  The APSC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  In April 2012 the United States district court dismissed Entergy Arkansas’s complaint without prejudice stating that Entergy Arkansas’s claim is not ripe for adjudication and that Entergy Arkansas did not have standing to bring suit at this time.

In March 2013 the FERC issued an order denying the LPSC’s request for rehearing of the FERC’s June 2011 order wherein the FERC concluded it would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in the interruptible load proceeding. Based on its review of the LPSC’s request for rehearing and the briefs filed as part of the paper hearing established in October 2011, the FERC affirmed its earlier ruling and declined to order refunds under the circumstances of the case. 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 the proceeding. Oral argument was held on the appeal in the D.C. Circuit in September 2014. 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. The matter is pending.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

In June 2009, the LPSC filed a complaint requesting that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocate the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibits sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies.   The LPSC’s complaint challenges sales made beginning in 2002 and requests refunds.  In July 2009 the Utility operating companies filed a response to the complaint requesting that the FERC dismiss the complaint on the merits without hearing because the LPSC has failed to meet its burden of showing any violation of the System Agreement and failed to produce any evidence of imprudent action by the Entergy System.  In their response, the Utility operating companies explained that the System Agreement clearly contemplates that the Utility operating companies may make sales to third parties for their own account, subject to the requirement that those sales be included in the load (or load shape) for the applicable Utility operating company.  The response further explained that the FERC already had determined that Entergy Arkansas’s short-term wholesale sales did not trigger the “right-of-first-refusal” provision of the System Agreement.  While the D.C. Circuit recently determined that the “right-of-first-refusal” issue was not properly before the FERC at the time of its earlier decision on the issue, the LPSC raised no additional claims or facts that would warrant the FERC reaching a different conclusion.

The LPSC filed direct testimony in the proceeding alleging, among other things, (1) that Entergy violated the System Agreement by permitting Entergy Arkansas to make non-requirements sales to non-affiliated third parties rather than making such energy available to the other Utility operating companies’ customers; and (2) that over the period 2000 - 2009, these non-requirements sales caused harm to the Utility operating companies’ customers and these customers should be compensated for this harm by Entergy.  In subsequent testimony, the LPSC modified its original damages claim in favor of quantifying damages by re-running intra-system bills.  The Utility operating companies believe the LPSC’s allegations are without merit.  A hearing in the matter was held in August 2010.

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

The FERC issued a decision in June 2012 and held that, while the System Agreement is ambiguous, it does provide authority for individual Utility operating companies to make opportunity sales for their own account and Entergy Arkansas made and priced these sales in good faith.  The FERC found, however, that the System Agreement does not provide authority for an individual Utility operating company to allocate the energy associated with such opportunity sales as part of its load, but provides a different allocation authority.  The FERC further found that the after-the-fact accounting methodology used to allocate the energy used to supply the sales was inconsistent with the System Agreement.  Quantifying the effect of the FERC’s decision will require re-running intra-system bills for a ten-year period, and the FERC in its decision established further hearing procedures to determine the calculation of the effects.  In July 2012, Entergy and the LPSC filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s June 2012 decision, which are pending with the FERC.

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

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

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy Arkansas

Entergy Arkansas December 2012 Winter Storm

In December 2012 a severe winter storm consisting of ice, snow, and high winds caused significant damage to Entergy Arkansas’s distribution lines, equipment, poles, and other facilities.  Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Arkansas’s electrical facilities in areas damaged from the winter storm were $63 million, including costs recorded as regulatory assets of approximately $22 million.  In the Entergy Arkansas 2013 rate case, the APSC approved inclusion of the construction spending in rate base and approved an increase in the normal storm cost accrual.

Entergy Louisiana

Hurricane Isaac

In August 2012, Hurricane Isaac caused extensive damage to portions of Entergy’s service area in Louisiana, and to a lesser extent in Mississippi and Arkansas.  The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages.  In January 2013, Entergy Louisiana drew $252 million, from its funded storm reserve escrow accounts.  In April 2013, Entergy Louisiana filed a joint application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs.  Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested that the LPSC determine the amount of such costs that were prudently incurred and are, thus, eligible for recovery from customers.  Including carrying costs and additional storm escrow funds for prior storms, Entergy Louisiana requested an LPSC determination that $321.5 million in system restoration costs were prudently incurred. In May 2013, Entergy Louisiana, and the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation (LURC), an instrumentality of the State of Louisiana, filed with the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant financing orders authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Act 55 of the Louisiana Regular Session of 2007 (Louisiana Act 55). The LPSC Staff filed direct testimony in September 2013 concluding that Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs incurred by Entergy Louisiana were reasonable and prudent, subject to proposed minor adjustments which totaled approximately 1% of the company’s costs. Following an evidentiary hearing and recommendations by the ALJ, the LPSC voted in June 2014 to approve a series of orders which (i) quantify the amount of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs prudently incurred ($290.8 million for Entergy Louisiana); (ii) determine the level of storm reserves to be re-established ($290 million for Entergy Louisiana); (iii) authorize Entergy Louisiana to utilize Louisiana Act 55 financing for Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs; and (iv) grant other requested relief associated with storm reserves and Act 55 financing of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs.  Entergy Louisiana committed to pass on to customers a minimum of $30.8 million of customer benefits through annual customer credits of approximately $6.2 million for five years. Approvals for the Act 55 financings were obtained from the LURC and the Louisiana State Bond Commission.

In July 2014, Entergy Louisiana issued two series totaling $300 million of 3.78% Series first mortgage bonds due April 2025. Entergy Louisiana used the proceeds to re-establish and replenish its storm damage escrow reserves and for general corporate purposes.

In August 2014 the Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority (LCDA) issued $314.85 million in bonds under Louisiana Act 55.  From the $309 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LCDA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $16 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $293 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  Entergy Louisiana used the $293 million received from the LURC to acquire 2,935,152.69 Class C preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy, that carry a 7.5% annual distribution rate. Distributions are payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2014, and the membership interests have a liquidation price of $100 per unit. The preferred membership interests are callable at the option of Entergy Holdings Company LLC after ten years under the terms of the LLC agreement. The terms of the membership interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Holdings Company LLC is subject, including the requirement to maintain a net worth of at least $1.75 billion.

Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LCDA and there is no recourse against Entergy or Entergy Louisiana in the event of a bond default.  To service the bonds, Entergy Louisiana collect a system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC, and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee.  Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as the billing and collection agent for the state.

Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike

In September 2008, Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike caused catastrophic damage to Entergy’s service territory.  Entergy Louisiana filed its Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike storm cost recovery case with the LPSC in May 2009.  In September 2009, Entergy Louisiana and the LURC filed with the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant financing orders authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55. Entergy Louisiana’s Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita storm costs were financed primarily by Louisiana Act 55 financing, as discussed below.  Entergy Louisiana also filed an application requesting LPSC approval for ancillary issues including the mechanism to flow charges and Louisiana Act 55 financing savings to customers via a Storm Cost Offset rider.

In December 2009, Entergy Louisiana entered into a stipulation agreement with the LPSC Staff that provides for total recoverable costs of approximately $628 million, including carrying costs.  Under this stipulation, Entergy Louisiana agrees not to recover $11.6 million of its storm restoration spending.  The stipulation also permits replenishing Entergy Louisiana’s storm reserve in the amount of $290 million when the Act 55 financings are accomplished.  In March and April 2010, Entergy Louisiana and other parties to the proceeding filed with the LPSC an uncontested stipulated settlement that includes these terms and also includes Entergy Louisiana’s proposal under the Act 55 financings, which includes a commitment to pass on to customers a minimum of $43.3 million of customer benefits through a prospective annual rate reduction of $8.7 million for five years.  A stipulation hearing was held before the ALJ on April 13, 2010.  On April 21, 2010, the LPSC approved the settlement and subsequently issued financing orders and a ratemaking order intended to facilitate the implementation of the Act 55 financings.  In June 2010 the Louisiana State Bond Commission approved the Act 55 financing.

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

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

Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita

In August and September 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused catastrophic damage to large portions of the Utility’s service territories in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, including the effect of extensive flooding that resulted from levee breaks in and around the greater New Orleans area.  The storms and flooding resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to electric distribution, transmission, and generation and gas infrastructure, and the loss of sales and customers due to mandatory evacuations and the destruction of homes and businesses.

In March 2008, Entergy Louisiana and the LURC filed at the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant a financing order authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55.  The Louisiana Act 55 financing is expected to produce additional customer benefits as compared to traditional securitization.  Entergy Louisiana also filed an application requesting LPSC approval for ancillary issues including the mechanism to flow charges and savings to customers via a Storm Cost Offset rider.  On April 8, 2008, the Louisiana Public Facilities Authority (LPFA), which is the issuer of the bonds pursuant to the Act 55 financing, approved requests for the Act 55 financing.  On April 10, 2008, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC Staff filed with the LPSC an uncontested stipulated settlement that includes Entergy Louisiana’s proposal under the Act 55 financing, which includes a commitment to pass on to customers a minimum of $40 million of customer benefits through a prospective annual rate reduction of $8 million for five years.  On April 16, 2008, the LPSC approved the settlement and issued two financing orders and one ratemaking order intended to facilitate implementation of the Act 55 financing.  In May 2008 the Louisiana State Bond Commission granted final approval of the Act 55 financing.

In July 2008, the LPFA issued $687.7 million in bonds under the aforementioned Act 55.  From the $679 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LPFA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $152 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $527 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Louisiana invested $545 million, including $17.8 million that was withdrawn from the restricted escrow account as approved by the April 16, 2008 LPSC orders, in exchange for 5,449,861.85 Class A preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy, that carry a 10% annual distribution rate.  In August 2008, the LPFA issued $278.4 million in bonds under the aforementioned Act 55.  From the $274.7 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LPFA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $87 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $187.7 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Louisiana invested $189.4 million, including $1.7 million that was withdrawn from the restricted escrow account as approved by the April 16, 2008 LPSC orders, in exchange for 1,893,918.39 Class A preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC that carry a 10% annual distribution rate.  Distributions are payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2008 and have a liquidation price of $100 per unit.  The preferred membership interests are callable at the option of Entergy Holdings Company LLC after ten years under the terms of the LLC agreement.  The terms of the membership interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Holdings Company LLC is subject, including the requirement to maintain a net worth of at least $1 billion.  In February 2012, Entergy Louisiana sold 500,000 of its Class A preferred membership units in Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a wholly-owned Entergy subsidiary, to a third party in exchange for $51 million plus accrued but unpaid distributions on the units.  The 500,000 preferred membership units are mandatorily redeemable in January 2112.

Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LPFA, and there is no recourse against Entergy or Entergy Louisiana in the event of a bond default.  To service the bonds, Entergy Louisiana collect a system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC, and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee.  Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as the billing and collection agent for the state.

Entergy Mississippi

On July 1, 2013, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation, wherein both parties agreed that approximately $32 million in storm restoration costs incurred in 2011 and 2012 were prudently incurred and chargeable to the storm damage provision, while approximately $700,000 in prudently incurred costs were more properly recoverable through the formula rate plan. Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff also agreed that the storm damage accrual should be increased from $750,000 per month to $1.75 million per month. In September 2013 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with the increase in the storm damage accrual effective with October 2013 bills. In February 2015, Entergy Mississippi provided notice to the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff that the storm damage accrual would be set to zero effective with the March 2015 billing cycle as a result of Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage accrual balance exceeding $15 million as of January 31, 2015, but will return to its current level when the storm damage accrual balance becomes less than $10 million.

Entergy New Orleans

In October 2006 the City Council approved a rate filing settlement agreement that, among other things, authorized a $75 million storm reserve for damage from future storms, which will be created over a ten-year period through a storm reserve rider that began in March 2007.  These storm reserve funds are held in a restricted escrow account until needed in response to a storm.  

In August 2012, Hurricane Isaac caused extensive damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy New Orleans’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Isaac were $47.3 million. Entergy New Orleans withdrew $17.4 million from the storm reserve escrow account to partially offset these costs. In February 2014, Entergy New Orleans made a filing with the City Council seeking certification of the Hurricane Isaac costs. In January 2015 the City Council issued a resolution approving the terms of a joint agreement in principle filed by Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Louisiana, and the City Council Advisors determining, among other things, that Entergy New Orleans’s prudently-incurred storm recovery costs were $49.3 million, of which $31.7 million, net of reimbursements from the storm reserve escrow account, remains recoverable from Entergy New Orleans’s electric customers. The resolution also directs Entergy New Orleans to file an application to securitize the unrecovered Council-approved storm recovery costs of $31.7 million pursuant to the Louisiana Electric Utility Storm Recovery Securitization Act (Louisiana Act 64). In addition, the resolution found that it is reasonable for Entergy New Orleans to include in the principal amount of its potential securitization the costs to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve in an amount that achieves the Council-approved funding level of $75 million. In January 2015, in compliance with that directive, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the financing of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. 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. In May 2015 the parties entered into an agreement in principle and the City Council issued a financing order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to issue storm recovery bonds in the aggregate amount of $98.7 million, including $31.8 million for recovery of Entergy New Orleans’s Hurricane Isaac storm recovery costs, including carrying costs, $63.9 million to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve, and approximately $3 million for estimated up-front financing costs associated with the securitization. See Note 5 to the financial statements for discussion of the issuance of the securitization bonds in July 2015.

New Nuclear Generation Development Costs

Entergy Louisiana

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana were developing a project option for new nuclear generation at River Bend.  In March 2010, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC seeking approval to continue the limited development activities necessary to preserve an option to construct a new unit at River Bend.  At its June 2012 meeting the LPSC voted to uphold an ALJ recommendation that the request of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana be declined on the basis that the LPSC’s rule on new nuclear development does not apply to activities to preserve an option to develop and on the further grounds that the companies improperly engaged in advanced preparation activities prior to certification.  The LPSC directed that Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana be permitted to seek recovery of these costs in their upcoming rate case filings that were subsequently filed in February 2013. In the resolution of the rate case proceeding the LPSC provided for an eight-year amortization of costs incurred in connection with the potential development of new nuclear generation at River Bend, without carrying costs, beginning in December 2014, provided, however, that amortization of these costs shall not result in a future rate increase. As of December 31, 2015, Entergy Louisiana has a regulatory asset of $50.4 million on its balance sheet related to these new nuclear generation development costs.

Entergy Mississippi

Pursuant to the Mississippi Baseload Act and the Mississippi Public Utilities Act, Entergy Mississippi had been developing and preserving a project option for new nuclear generation at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station.  In October 2010, Entergy Mississippi filed an application with the MPSC requesting that the MPSC determine that it was in the public interest to preserve the option to construct new nuclear generation at Grand Gulf and that the MPSC approve the deferral of Entergy Mississippi’s costs incurred to date and in the future related to this project, including the accrual of AFUDC or similar carrying charges.  In October 2011, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed with the MPSC a joint stipulation that the MPSC approved in November 2011.  The stipulation stated that there should be a deferral of the $57 million of costs incurred through September 2011 in connection with planning, evaluation, monitoring, and other and related generation resource development activities for new nuclear generation at Grand Gulf.  

In October 2014, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into and filed joint stipulations in Entergy Mississippi’s general rate case proceeding, which are discussed above. In consideration of the comprehensive terms for settlement in that rate case proceeding, the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff and Entergy Mississippi agreed that Entergy Mississippi would request consolidation of the new nuclear generation development costs proceeding with the rate case proceeding for hearing purposes and will not further pursue, except as noted below, recovery of the costs deferred by MPSC order in the new nuclear generation development docket. The stipulations state, however, that, if Entergy Mississippi decides to move forward with nuclear development in Mississippi, it can at that time re-present for consideration by the MPSC only those costs directly associated with the existing early site permit (ESP), to the extent that the costs are verifiable and prudent and the ESP is still valid and relevant to any such option pursued. After considering the progress of the new nuclear generation costs proceeding in light of the joint stipulations, Entergy Mississippi recorded in 2014 a $56.2 million pre-tax charge to recognize that the regulatory asset associated with new nuclear generation development is no longer probable of recovery. In December 2014 the MPSC issued an order accepting in their entirety the October 2014 stipulations, including the findings and terms of the stipulations regarding new nuclear generation development costs.

Texas Power Price Lawsuit

In August 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the district court of Chambers County, Texas by Texas residents on behalf of a purported class of the Texas retail customers of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. who were billed and paid for electric power from January 1, 1994 to the present.  The named defendants include Entergy Corporation, Entergy Services, Entergy Power, Entergy Power Marketing Corp., and Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Gulf States, Inc. was not a named defendant, but was alleged to be a co-conspirator.  The court granted the request of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. to intervene in the lawsuit to protect its interests.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a “price gouging accounting scheme” to sell to plaintiffs and similarly situated utility customers higher priced power generated by the defendants while rejecting less expensive power offered from off-system suppliers.  In particular, plaintiffs allege that the defendants manipulated and continue to manipulate the dispatch of generation so that power is purchased from affiliated expensive resources instead of buying cheaper off-system power.

Plaintiffs stated in their pleadings that customers in Texas were charged at least $57 million above prevailing market prices for power.  Plaintiffs seek actual, consequential and exemplary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees, and disgorgement of profits.  The plaintiffs’ experts have tendered a report calculating damages in a large range, from $153 million to $972 million in present value, under various scenarios as of the date of the report.  The Entergy defendants have tendered expert reports challenging the assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions of the plaintiffs’ expert reports.

In March 2012 the state district court found that the case met the requirements to be maintained as a class action under Texas law.  In April 2012 the court entered an order certifying the class.  The defendants appealed the order to the Texas Court of Appeals – First District and oral argument was held in May 2013. In November 2014 the Texas Court of Appeals - First District reversed the state district court’s class certification order and dismissed the case holding that the state district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to address the issues. Plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing and a motion for rehearing en banc. 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. In July 2015 the Court of Appeals issued a new opinion again finding that the plaintiffs’ claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC and, therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The Court of Appeals ordered that the state district court dismiss all claims against the Entergy defendants. In September 2015 plaintiffs filed a petition for review at the Supreme Court of Texas. At the request of the Court, the Entergy defendants filed a response in December 2015. In January 2016 the Supreme Court of Texas issued an order requiring the parties to file briefs on the merits.