Rate And Regulatory Matters (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2015

Details Of Other Regulatory Assets

	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

Schedule of Regulatory Liabilities

	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 [Member]

Details Of Other Regulatory Assets

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

Schedule of Regulatory Liabilities

	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

The Amount Of Deferred Fuel Costs, That Entergy Expects To Recover (Or Return To Customers) Through Fuel Mechanisms, Subject To Subsequent Regulatory Review

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.

Estimate Of Payments Or Receipts Among Utility Operating Companies

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.

Payments/Receipts Among The Utility Operating Companies To Achieve Rough Production Cost Equalization

	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

Schedule of Comprehensive Bandwidth Recalculation Report Reflecting Payment (Receipt) Amounts [Table Text Block]

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 Louisiana [Member]

Details Of Other Regulatory Assets

	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

Schedule of Regulatory Liabilities

	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

The Amount Of Deferred Fuel Costs, That Entergy Expects To Recover (Or Return To Customers) Through Fuel Mechanisms, Subject To Subsequent Regulatory Review

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.

Estimate Of Payments Or Receipts Among Utility Operating Companies

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.

Payments/Receipts Among The Utility Operating Companies To Achieve Rough Production Cost Equalization

	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

Schedule of Comprehensive Bandwidth Recalculation Report Reflecting Payment (Receipt) Amounts [Table Text Block]

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 Mississippi [Member]

Details Of Other Regulatory Assets

	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

The Amount Of Deferred Fuel Costs, That Entergy Expects To Recover (Or Return To Customers) Through Fuel Mechanisms, Subject To Subsequent Regulatory Review

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.

Estimate Of Payments Or Receipts Among Utility Operating Companies

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.

Payments/Receipts Among The Utility Operating Companies To Achieve Rough Production Cost Equalization

	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

Schedule of Comprehensive Bandwidth Recalculation Report Reflecting Payment (Receipt) Amounts [Table Text Block]

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 New Orleans [Member]

Details Of Other Regulatory Assets

	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

The Amount Of Deferred Fuel Costs, That Entergy Expects To Recover (Or Return To Customers) Through Fuel Mechanisms, Subject To Subsequent Regulatory Review

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.

Estimate Of Payments Or Receipts Among Utility Operating Companies

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.

Payments/Receipts Among The Utility Operating Companies To Achieve Rough Production Cost Equalization

	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

Schedule of Comprehensive Bandwidth Recalculation Report Reflecting Payment (Receipt) Amounts [Table Text Block]

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 Texas [Member]

Details Of Other Regulatory Assets

	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

Schedule of Regulatory Liabilities

	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

The Amount Of Deferred Fuel Costs, That Entergy Expects To Recover (Or Return To Customers) Through Fuel Mechanisms, Subject To Subsequent Regulatory Review

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.

Estimate Of Payments Or Receipts Among Utility Operating Companies

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.

Payments/Receipts Among The Utility Operating Companies To Achieve Rough Production Cost Equalization

	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

Schedule of Comprehensive Bandwidth Recalculation Report Reflecting Payment (Receipt) Amounts [Table Text Block]

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)

System Energy [Member]

Details Of Other Regulatory Assets

	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

Schedule of Regulatory Liabilities

	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