Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Jun. 30, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries are involved in a number of legal, regulatory, and tax proceedings before various courts, regulatory commissions, and governmental agencies in the ordinary course of business. While management is unable to predict with certainty the outcome of such proceedings, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on Entergy’s results of operations, cash flows, or financial condition, except as otherwise discussed in the Form 10-K or in this report. Entergy discusses regulatory proceedings in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and herein and discusses tax proceedings in Note 3 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and Note 10 to the financial statements herein. ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the ANO stator incident and subsequent NRC reviews. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2015 the NRC issued a letter notifying Entergy of its decision to move ANO into the “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column” (Column 4) of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix. Placement into Column 4 requires significant additional NRC inspection activities at the ANO site, including a review of the site’s root cause evaluation associated with the flood barrier and stator issues, an assessment of the effectiveness of the site’s corrective action program, an additional design basis inspection, a safety culture assessment, and possibly other inspection activities consistent with the NRC’s Inspection Procedure. Entergy Arkansas incurred incremental expenses of approximately $53 million in 2015 to prepare for the NRC inspection that began in early 2016. Excluding remediation and response costs that may result from the additional NRC inspection activities, Entergy Arkansas expects to incur incremental expenses of approximately $50 million in 2016, of which $30.6 million was incurred as of June 30, 2016, in support of NRC inspection activities and to implement Entergy Arkansas’s performance improvement initiatives developed in 2015. A lesser amount of incremental expenses is expected to be ongoing annually after 2016, until ANO transitions out of Column 4. The NRC completed the supplemental inspection required for ANO’s Column 4 designation in February 2016, and published its inspection report in June 2016. In its inspection report, the NRC concluded that the ANO site is being operated safely and that Entergy understands the depth and breadth of performance concerns associated with ANO’s performance decline. Also in June 2016, the NRC issued a confirmatory action letter to confirm the actions Entergy Arkansas has taken and will continue to take to improve performance at ANO. The NRC will verify the completion of those actions through quarterly follow-up inspections, the results of which will determine when ANO should transition out of Column 4. Pilgrim NRC Oversight and Planned Shutdown In September 2015 the NRC placed Pilgrim in its “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column” (Column 4) of its Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix due to its finding of continuing weaknesses in Pilgrim’s corrective action program that contributed to repeated unscheduled shutdowns and equipment failures. The preliminary estimate of direct costs of Pilgrim’s response to a planned NRC enhanced inspection ranges from $45 million to $60 million in operation and maintenance expense, including approximately $30 million in 2016, of which $12 million was incurred as of June 30, 2016. The estimate does not include potential capital investment or other costs to address issues that may arise in the inspection. Entergy determined in April 2016 that it intends to refuel Pilgrim in 2017 and then cease operations May 31, 2019. In October 2015, Entergy previously announced its intention to cease operations at Pilgrim because of poor market conditions, reduced revenues, and increased operational costs. Pilgrim currently has approximately 677 MW of Capacity Supply Obligations in ISO New England through May 2019. Spent Nuclear Fuel Litigation Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the DOE is required, for a specified fee, to construct storage facilities for, and to dispose of, all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste generated by domestic nuclear power reactors. Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have been charged fees for the estimated future disposal costs of spent nuclear fuel in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The affected Entergy companies entered into contracts with the DOE, whereby the DOE is to furnish disposal services at a cost of one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983, plus a one-time fee for generation prior to that date. Entergy considers all costs incurred for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, except accrued interest, to be proper components of nuclear fuel expense. Provisions to recover such costs have been or will be made in applications to regulatory authorities for the Utility plants. Following the current Presidential administration’s defunding of the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository program, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and others sued the government seeking cessation of collection of the one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983 fee. In November 2013 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the DOE to submit a proposal to Congress to reset the fee to zero until the DOE complies with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or Congress enacts an alternative waste disposal plan. In January 2014 the DOE submitted the proposal to Congress under protest, and also filed a petition for rehearing with the D.C. Circuit. The petition for rehearing was denied. The zero spent fuel fee went into effect prospectively in May 2014. Management cannot predict the potential timing or magnitude of future spent fuel fee revisions that may occur. Because the DOE has not begun accepting spent fuel, it is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and has breached its spent fuel disposal contracts. As a result of the DOE’s failure to begin disposal of spent nuclear fuel in 1998 pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the spent fuel disposal contracts, Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have incurred and will continue to incur damages. Beginning in November 2003 these subsidiaries have pursued litigation to recover the damages caused by the DOE’s delay in performance. Following are details of final judgments recorded by Entergy in 2016 related to Entergy’s nuclear owner licensee subsidiaries litigation with the DOE. In December 2015 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $81 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 and Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick in the first round Indian Point 3/FitzPatrick damages case, and Entergy received the payment from the U.S. Treasury in June 2016. The effect of recording the Indian Point 3 proceeds was a reduction to plant, other operation and maintenance expense, and depreciation expense. The Indian Point 3 damages award included $45 million related to costs previously capitalized and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $45 million, Entergy recorded $8 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. Entergy reduced its Indian Point 3 plant asset balance by the remaining $37 million. The effect of recording the FitzPatrick proceeds was a reduction to plant and other operation and maintenance expense. The FitzPatrick damages awarded included $32 million related to costs previously capitalized and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $32 million, Entergy recorded an $11 million reduction to bring its remaining FitzPatrick plant asset balance to zero. The remaining $21 million was recorded as a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense because FitzPatrick’s plant asset balance is fully impaired. In April 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a partial judgment in the amount of $42 million in favor of Entergy Louisiana and against the DOE in the first round River Bend damages case, reserving the issue of cask loading costs pending resolution of the appeal on the same issues in the Entergy Arkansas and System Energy cases. The appeals period for the partial judgment has ended with no appeals filed, and Entergy Louisiana requested payment from the U.S. Treasury of the $42 million in June 2016 and recorded a receivable as of June 30, 2016. The primary effects of recording the receivable were reductions to plant, nuclear fuel expense, other operation and maintenance expense, and depreciation expense. The River Bend damages award included $17 million related to costs previously capitalized, $23 million related to costs previously recorded as nuclear fuel expense, and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $17 million, Entergy Louisiana recorded $3 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. Entergy Louisiana reduced its River Bend plant asset balance by the remaining $14 million. In May 2016, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and the DOE entered into a stipulation agreement and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $19 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and against the DOE in the second round Vermont Yankee damages case. Entergy received payment from the U.S. Treasury in June 2016. The effect of recording the proceeds was a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense and depreciation expense. The damages awarded included $15 million related to costs previously capitalized and $4 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $15 million, Entergy recorded $2 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. The remaining $13 million would have been recorded as a reduction to Vermont Yankee’s plant asset balance, but was recorded as a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense because Vermont Yankee’s plant asset balance is fully impaired. Management cannot predict the timing or amount of any potential recoveries on other claims filed by Entergy subsidiaries, and cannot predict the timing of any eventual receipt from the DOE of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims damage awards. Nuclear Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on nuclear liability and property insurance associated with Entergy’s nuclear power plants. Conventional Property Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s non-nuclear property insurance program. Employment Litigation See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s employment and labor-related proceedings. Asbestos Litigation (Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas) See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding asbestos litigation at Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas.
Entergy Arkansas [Member]
Commitments And Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries are involved in a number of legal, regulatory, and tax proceedings before various courts, regulatory commissions, and governmental agencies in the ordinary course of business. While management is unable to predict with certainty the outcome of such proceedings, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on Entergy’s results of operations, cash flows, or financial condition, except as otherwise discussed in the Form 10-K or in this report. Entergy discusses regulatory proceedings in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and herein and discusses tax proceedings in Note 3 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and Note 10 to the financial statements herein. ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the ANO stator incident and subsequent NRC reviews. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2015 the NRC issued a letter notifying Entergy of its decision to move ANO into the “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column” (Column 4) of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix. Placement into Column 4 requires significant additional NRC inspection activities at the ANO site, including a review of the site’s root cause evaluation associated with the flood barrier and stator issues, an assessment of the effectiveness of the site’s corrective action program, an additional design basis inspection, a safety culture assessment, and possibly other inspection activities consistent with the NRC’s Inspection Procedure. Entergy Arkansas incurred incremental expenses of approximately $53 million in 2015 to prepare for the NRC inspection that began in early 2016. Excluding remediation and response costs that may result from the additional NRC inspection activities, Entergy Arkansas expects to incur incremental expenses of approximately $50 million in 2016, of which $30.6 million was incurred as of June 30, 2016, in support of NRC inspection activities and to implement Entergy Arkansas’s performance improvement initiatives developed in 2015. A lesser amount of incremental expenses is expected to be ongoing annually after 2016, until ANO transitions out of Column 4. The NRC completed the supplemental inspection required for ANO’s Column 4 designation in February 2016, and published its inspection report in June 2016. In its inspection report, the NRC concluded that the ANO site is being operated safely and that Entergy understands the depth and breadth of performance concerns associated with ANO’s performance decline. Also in June 2016, the NRC issued a confirmatory action letter to confirm the actions Entergy Arkansas has taken and will continue to take to improve performance at ANO. The NRC will verify the completion of those actions through quarterly follow-up inspections, the results of which will determine when ANO should transition out of Column 4. Pilgrim NRC Oversight and Planned Shutdown In September 2015 the NRC placed Pilgrim in its “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column” (Column 4) of its Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix due to its finding of continuing weaknesses in Pilgrim’s corrective action program that contributed to repeated unscheduled shutdowns and equipment failures. The preliminary estimate of direct costs of Pilgrim’s response to a planned NRC enhanced inspection ranges from $45 million to $60 million in operation and maintenance expense, including approximately $30 million in 2016, of which $12 million was incurred as of June 30, 2016. The estimate does not include potential capital investment or other costs to address issues that may arise in the inspection. Entergy determined in April 2016 that it intends to refuel Pilgrim in 2017 and then cease operations May 31, 2019. In October 2015, Entergy previously announced its intention to cease operations at Pilgrim because of poor market conditions, reduced revenues, and increased operational costs. Pilgrim currently has approximately 677 MW of Capacity Supply Obligations in ISO New England through May 2019. Spent Nuclear Fuel Litigation Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the DOE is required, for a specified fee, to construct storage facilities for, and to dispose of, all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste generated by domestic nuclear power reactors. Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have been charged fees for the estimated future disposal costs of spent nuclear fuel in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The affected Entergy companies entered into contracts with the DOE, whereby the DOE is to furnish disposal services at a cost of one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983, plus a one-time fee for generation prior to that date. Entergy considers all costs incurred for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, except accrued interest, to be proper components of nuclear fuel expense. Provisions to recover such costs have been or will be made in applications to regulatory authorities for the Utility plants. Following the current Presidential administration’s defunding of the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository program, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and others sued the government seeking cessation of collection of the one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983 fee. In November 2013 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the DOE to submit a proposal to Congress to reset the fee to zero until the DOE complies with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or Congress enacts an alternative waste disposal plan. In January 2014 the DOE submitted the proposal to Congress under protest, and also filed a petition for rehearing with the D.C. Circuit. The petition for rehearing was denied. The zero spent fuel fee went into effect prospectively in May 2014. Management cannot predict the potential timing or magnitude of future spent fuel fee revisions that may occur. Because the DOE has not begun accepting spent fuel, it is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and has breached its spent fuel disposal contracts. As a result of the DOE’s failure to begin disposal of spent nuclear fuel in 1998 pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the spent fuel disposal contracts, Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have incurred and will continue to incur damages. Beginning in November 2003 these subsidiaries have pursued litigation to recover the damages caused by the DOE’s delay in performance. Following are details of final judgments recorded by Entergy in 2016 related to Entergy’s nuclear owner licensee subsidiaries litigation with the DOE. In December 2015 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $81 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 and Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick in the first round Indian Point 3/FitzPatrick damages case, and Entergy received the payment from the U.S. Treasury in June 2016. The effect of recording the Indian Point 3 proceeds was a reduction to plant, other operation and maintenance expense, and depreciation expense. The Indian Point 3 damages award included $45 million related to costs previously capitalized and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $45 million, Entergy recorded $8 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. Entergy reduced its Indian Point 3 plant asset balance by the remaining $37 million. The effect of recording the FitzPatrick proceeds was a reduction to plant and other operation and maintenance expense. The FitzPatrick damages awarded included $32 million related to costs previously capitalized and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $32 million, Entergy recorded an $11 million reduction to bring its remaining FitzPatrick plant asset balance to zero. The remaining $21 million was recorded as a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense because FitzPatrick’s plant asset balance is fully impaired. In April 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a partial judgment in the amount of $42 million in favor of Entergy Louisiana and against the DOE in the first round River Bend damages case, reserving the issue of cask loading costs pending resolution of the appeal on the same issues in the Entergy Arkansas and System Energy cases. The appeals period for the partial judgment has ended with no appeals filed, and Entergy Louisiana requested payment from the U.S. Treasury of the $42 million in June 2016 and recorded a receivable as of June 30, 2016. The primary effects of recording the receivable were reductions to plant, nuclear fuel expense, other operation and maintenance expense, and depreciation expense. The River Bend damages award included $17 million related to costs previously capitalized, $23 million related to costs previously recorded as nuclear fuel expense, and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $17 million, Entergy Louisiana recorded $3 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. Entergy Louisiana reduced its River Bend plant asset balance by the remaining $14 million. In May 2016, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and the DOE entered into a stipulation agreement and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $19 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and against the DOE in the second round Vermont Yankee damages case. Entergy received payment from the U.S. Treasury in June 2016. The effect of recording the proceeds was a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense and depreciation expense. The damages awarded included $15 million related to costs previously capitalized and $4 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $15 million, Entergy recorded $2 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. The remaining $13 million would have been recorded as a reduction to Vermont Yankee’s plant asset balance, but was recorded as a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense because Vermont Yankee’s plant asset balance is fully impaired. Management cannot predict the timing or amount of any potential recoveries on other claims filed by Entergy subsidiaries, and cannot predict the timing of any eventual receipt from the DOE of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims damage awards. Nuclear Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on nuclear liability and property insurance associated with Entergy’s nuclear power plants. Conventional Property Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s non-nuclear property insurance program. Employment Litigation See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s employment and labor-related proceedings. Asbestos Litigation (Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas) See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding asbestos litigation at Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas.
Entergy Louisiana [Member]
Commitments And Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries are involved in a number of legal, regulatory, and tax proceedings before various courts, regulatory commissions, and governmental agencies in the ordinary course of business. While management is unable to predict with certainty the outcome of such proceedings, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on Entergy’s results of operations, cash flows, or financial condition, except as otherwise discussed in the Form 10-K or in this report. Entergy discusses regulatory proceedings in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and herein and discusses tax proceedings in Note 3 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and Note 10 to the financial statements herein. ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the ANO stator incident and subsequent NRC reviews. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2015 the NRC issued a letter notifying Entergy of its decision to move ANO into the “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column” (Column 4) of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix. Placement into Column 4 requires significant additional NRC inspection activities at the ANO site, including a review of the site’s root cause evaluation associated with the flood barrier and stator issues, an assessment of the effectiveness of the site’s corrective action program, an additional design basis inspection, a safety culture assessment, and possibly other inspection activities consistent with the NRC’s Inspection Procedure. Entergy Arkansas incurred incremental expenses of approximately $53 million in 2015 to prepare for the NRC inspection that began in early 2016. Excluding remediation and response costs that may result from the additional NRC inspection activities, Entergy Arkansas expects to incur incremental expenses of approximately $50 million in 2016, of which $30.6 million was incurred as of June 30, 2016, in support of NRC inspection activities and to implement Entergy Arkansas’s performance improvement initiatives developed in 2015. A lesser amount of incremental expenses is expected to be ongoing annually after 2016, until ANO transitions out of Column 4. The NRC completed the supplemental inspection required for ANO’s Column 4 designation in February 2016, and published its inspection report in June 2016. In its inspection report, the NRC concluded that the ANO site is being operated safely and that Entergy understands the depth and breadth of performance concerns associated with ANO’s performance decline. Also in June 2016, the NRC issued a confirmatory action letter to confirm the actions Entergy Arkansas has taken and will continue to take to improve performance at ANO. The NRC will verify the completion of those actions through quarterly follow-up inspections, the results of which will determine when ANO should transition out of Column 4. Pilgrim NRC Oversight and Planned Shutdown In September 2015 the NRC placed Pilgrim in its “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column” (Column 4) of its Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix due to its finding of continuing weaknesses in Pilgrim’s corrective action program that contributed to repeated unscheduled shutdowns and equipment failures. The preliminary estimate of direct costs of Pilgrim’s response to a planned NRC enhanced inspection ranges from $45 million to $60 million in operation and maintenance expense, including approximately $30 million in 2016, of which $12 million was incurred as of June 30, 2016. The estimate does not include potential capital investment or other costs to address issues that may arise in the inspection. Entergy determined in April 2016 that it intends to refuel Pilgrim in 2017 and then cease operations May 31, 2019. In October 2015, Entergy previously announced its intention to cease operations at Pilgrim because of poor market conditions, reduced revenues, and increased operational costs. Pilgrim currently has approximately 677 MW of Capacity Supply Obligations in ISO New England through May 2019. Spent Nuclear Fuel Litigation Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the DOE is required, for a specified fee, to construct storage facilities for, and to dispose of, all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste generated by domestic nuclear power reactors. Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have been charged fees for the estimated future disposal costs of spent nuclear fuel in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The affected Entergy companies entered into contracts with the DOE, whereby the DOE is to furnish disposal services at a cost of one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983, plus a one-time fee for generation prior to that date. Entergy considers all costs incurred for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, except accrued interest, to be proper components of nuclear fuel expense. Provisions to recover such costs have been or will be made in applications to regulatory authorities for the Utility plants. Following the current Presidential administration’s defunding of the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository program, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and others sued the government seeking cessation of collection of the one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983 fee. In November 2013 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the DOE to submit a proposal to Congress to reset the fee to zero until the DOE complies with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or Congress enacts an alternative waste disposal plan. In January 2014 the DOE submitted the proposal to Congress under protest, and also filed a petition for rehearing with the D.C. Circuit. The petition for rehearing was denied. The zero spent fuel fee went into effect prospectively in May 2014. Management cannot predict the potential timing or magnitude of future spent fuel fee revisions that may occur. Because the DOE has not begun accepting spent fuel, it is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and has breached its spent fuel disposal contracts. As a result of the DOE’s failure to begin disposal of spent nuclear fuel in 1998 pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the spent fuel disposal contracts, Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have incurred and will continue to incur damages. Beginning in November 2003 these subsidiaries have pursued litigation to recover the damages caused by the DOE’s delay in performance. Following are details of final judgments recorded by Entergy in 2016 related to Entergy’s nuclear owner licensee subsidiaries litigation with the DOE. In December 2015 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $81 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 and Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick in the first round Indian Point 3/FitzPatrick damages case, and Entergy received the payment from the U.S. Treasury in June 2016. The effect of recording the Indian Point 3 proceeds was a reduction to plant, other operation and maintenance expense, and depreciation expense. The Indian Point 3 damages award included $45 million related to costs previously capitalized and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $45 million, Entergy recorded $8 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. Entergy reduced its Indian Point 3 plant asset balance by the remaining $37 million. The effect of recording the FitzPatrick proceeds was a reduction to plant and other operation and maintenance expense. The FitzPatrick damages awarded included $32 million related to costs previously capitalized and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $32 million, Entergy recorded an $11 million reduction to bring its remaining FitzPatrick plant asset balance to zero. The remaining $21 million was recorded as a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense because FitzPatrick’s plant asset balance is fully impaired. In April 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a partial judgment in the amount of $42 million in favor of Entergy Louisiana and against the DOE in the first round River Bend damages case, reserving the issue of cask loading costs pending resolution of the appeal on the same issues in the Entergy Arkansas and System Energy cases. The appeals period for the partial judgment has ended with no appeals filed, and Entergy Louisiana requested payment from the U.S. Treasury of the $42 million in June 2016 and recorded a receivable as of June 30, 2016. The primary effects of recording the receivable were reductions to plant, nuclear fuel expense, other operation and maintenance expense, and depreciation expense. The River Bend damages award included $17 million related to costs previously capitalized, $23 million related to costs previously recorded as nuclear fuel expense, and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $17 million, Entergy Louisiana recorded $3 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. Entergy Louisiana reduced its River Bend plant asset balance by the remaining $14 million. In May 2016, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and the DOE entered into a stipulation agreement and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $19 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and against the DOE in the second round Vermont Yankee damages case. Entergy received payment from the U.S. Treasury in June 2016. The effect of recording the proceeds was a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense and depreciation expense. The damages awarded included $15 million related to costs previously capitalized and $4 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $15 million, Entergy recorded $2 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. The remaining $13 million would have been recorded as a reduction to Vermont Yankee’s plant asset balance, but was recorded as a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense because Vermont Yankee’s plant asset balance is fully impaired. Management cannot predict the timing or amount of any potential recoveries on other claims filed by Entergy subsidiaries, and cannot predict the timing of any eventual receipt from the DOE of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims damage awards. Nuclear Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on nuclear liability and property insurance associated with Entergy’s nuclear power plants. Conventional Property Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s non-nuclear property insurance program. Employment Litigation See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s employment and labor-related proceedings. Asbestos Litigation (Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas) See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding asbestos litigation at Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas.
Entergy Mississippi [Member]
Commitments And Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries are involved in a number of legal, regulatory, and tax proceedings before various courts, regulatory commissions, and governmental agencies in the ordinary course of business. While management is unable to predict with certainty the outcome of such proceedings, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on Entergy’s results of operations, cash flows, or financial condition, except as otherwise discussed in the Form 10-K or in this report. Entergy discusses regulatory proceedings in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and herein and discusses tax proceedings in Note 3 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and Note 10 to the financial statements herein. ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the ANO stator incident and subsequent NRC reviews. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2015 the NRC issued a letter notifying Entergy of its decision to move ANO into the “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column” (Column 4) of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix. Placement into Column 4 requires significant additional NRC inspection activities at the ANO site, including a review of the site’s root cause evaluation associated with the flood barrier and stator issues, an assessment of the effectiveness of the site’s corrective action program, an additional design basis inspection, a safety culture assessment, and possibly other inspection activities consistent with the NRC’s Inspection Procedure. Entergy Arkansas incurred incremental expenses of approximately $53 million in 2015 to prepare for the NRC inspection that began in early 2016. Excluding remediation and response costs that may result from the additional NRC inspection activities, Entergy Arkansas expects to incur incremental expenses of approximately $50 million in 2016, of which $30.6 million was incurred as of June 30, 2016, in support of NRC inspection activities and to implement Entergy Arkansas’s performance improvement initiatives developed in 2015. A lesser amount of incremental expenses is expected to be ongoing annually after 2016, until ANO transitions out of Column 4. The NRC completed the supplemental inspection required for ANO’s Column 4 designation in February 2016, and published its inspection report in June 2016. In its inspection report, the NRC concluded that the ANO site is being operated safely and that Entergy understands the depth and breadth of performance concerns associated with ANO’s performance decline. Also in June 2016, the NRC issued a confirmatory action letter to confirm the actions Entergy Arkansas has taken and will continue to take to improve performance at ANO. The NRC will verify the completion of those actions through quarterly follow-up inspections, the results of which will determine when ANO should transition out of Column 4. Pilgrim NRC Oversight and Planned Shutdown In September 2015 the NRC placed Pilgrim in its “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column” (Column 4) of its Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix due to its finding of continuing weaknesses in Pilgrim’s corrective action program that contributed to repeated unscheduled shutdowns and equipment failures. The preliminary estimate of direct costs of Pilgrim’s response to a planned NRC enhanced inspection ranges from $45 million to $60 million in operation and maintenance expense, including approximately $30 million in 2016, of which $12 million was incurred as of June 30, 2016. The estimate does not include potential capital investment or other costs to address issues that may arise in the inspection. Entergy determined in April 2016 that it intends to refuel Pilgrim in 2017 and then cease operations May 31, 2019. In October 2015, Entergy previously announced its intention to cease operations at Pilgrim because of poor market conditions, reduced revenues, and increased operational costs. Pilgrim currently has approximately 677 MW of Capacity Supply Obligations in ISO New England through May 2019. Spent Nuclear Fuel Litigation Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the DOE is required, for a specified fee, to construct storage facilities for, and to dispose of, all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste generated by domestic nuclear power reactors. Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have been charged fees for the estimated future disposal costs of spent nuclear fuel in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The affected Entergy companies entered into contracts with the DOE, whereby the DOE is to furnish disposal services at a cost of one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983, plus a one-time fee for generation prior to that date. Entergy considers all costs incurred for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, except accrued interest, to be proper components of nuclear fuel expense. Provisions to recover such costs have been or will be made in applications to regulatory authorities for the Utility plants. Following the current Presidential administration’s defunding of the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository program, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and others sued the government seeking cessation of collection of the one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983 fee. In November 2013 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the DOE to submit a proposal to Congress to reset the fee to zero until the DOE complies with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or Congress enacts an alternative waste disposal plan. In January 2014 the DOE submitted the proposal to Congress under protest, and also filed a petition for rehearing with the D.C. Circuit. The petition for rehearing was denied. The zero spent fuel fee went into effect prospectively in May 2014. Management cannot predict the potential timing or magnitude of future spent fuel fee revisions that may occur. Because the DOE has not begun accepting spent fuel, it is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and has breached its spent fuel disposal contracts. As a result of the DOE’s failure to begin disposal of spent nuclear fuel in 1998 pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the spent fuel disposal contracts, Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have incurred and will continue to incur damages. Beginning in November 2003 these subsidiaries have pursued litigation to recover the damages caused by the DOE’s delay in performance. Following are details of final judgments recorded by Entergy in 2016 related to Entergy’s nuclear owner licensee subsidiaries litigation with the DOE. In December 2015 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $81 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 and Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick in the first round Indian Point 3/FitzPatrick damages case, and Entergy received the payment from the U.S. Treasury in June 2016. The effect of recording the Indian Point 3 proceeds was a reduction to plant, other operation and maintenance expense, and depreciation expense. The Indian Point 3 damages award included $45 million related to costs previously capitalized and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $45 million, Entergy recorded $8 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. Entergy reduced its Indian Point 3 plant asset balance by the remaining $37 million. The effect of recording the FitzPatrick proceeds was a reduction to plant and other operation and maintenance expense. The FitzPatrick damages awarded included $32 million related to costs previously capitalized and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $32 million, Entergy recorded an $11 million reduction to bring its remaining FitzPatrick plant asset balance to zero. The remaining $21 million was recorded as a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense because FitzPatrick’s plant asset balance is fully impaired. In April 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a partial judgment in the amount of $42 million in favor of Entergy Louisiana and against the DOE in the first round River Bend damages case, reserving the issue of cask loading costs pending resolution of the appeal on the same issues in the Entergy Arkansas and System Energy cases. The appeals period for the partial judgment has ended with no appeals filed, and Entergy Louisiana requested payment from the U.S. Treasury of the $42 million in June 2016 and recorded a receivable as of June 30, 2016. The primary effects of recording the receivable were reductions to plant, nuclear fuel expense, other operation and maintenance expense, and depreciation expense. The River Bend damages award included $17 million related to costs previously capitalized, $23 million related to costs previously recorded as nuclear fuel expense, and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $17 million, Entergy Louisiana recorded $3 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. Entergy Louisiana reduced its River Bend plant asset balance by the remaining $14 million. In May 2016, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and the DOE entered into a stipulation agreement and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $19 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and against the DOE in the second round Vermont Yankee damages case. Entergy received payment from the U.S. Treasury in June 2016. The effect of recording the proceeds was a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense and depreciation expense. The damages awarded included $15 million related to costs previously capitalized and $4 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $15 million, Entergy recorded $2 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. The remaining $13 million would have been recorded as a reduction to Vermont Yankee’s plant asset balance, but was recorded as a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense because Vermont Yankee’s plant asset balance is fully impaired. Management cannot predict the timing or amount of any potential recoveries on other claims filed by Entergy subsidiaries, and cannot predict the timing of any eventual receipt from the DOE of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims damage awards. Nuclear Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on nuclear liability and property insurance associated with Entergy’s nuclear power plants. Conventional Property Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s non-nuclear property insurance program. Employment Litigation See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s employment and labor-related proceedings. Asbestos Litigation (Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas) See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding asbestos litigation at Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas.
Entergy New Orleans [Member]
Commitments And Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries are involved in a number of legal, regulatory, and tax proceedings before various courts, regulatory commissions, and governmental agencies in the ordinary course of business. While management is unable to predict with certainty the outcome of such proceedings, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on Entergy’s results of operations, cash flows, or financial condition, except as otherwise discussed in the Form 10-K or in this report. Entergy discusses regulatory proceedings in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and herein and discusses tax proceedings in Note 3 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and Note 10 to the financial statements herein. ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the ANO stator incident and subsequent NRC reviews. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2015 the NRC issued a letter notifying Entergy of its decision to move ANO into the “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column” (Column 4) of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix. Placement into Column 4 requires significant additional NRC inspection activities at the ANO site, including a review of the site’s root cause evaluation associated with the flood barrier and stator issues, an assessment of the effectiveness of the site’s corrective action program, an additional design basis inspection, a safety culture assessment, and possibly other inspection activities consistent with the NRC’s Inspection Procedure. Entergy Arkansas incurred incremental expenses of approximately $53 million in 2015 to prepare for the NRC inspection that began in early 2016. Excluding remediation and response costs that may result from the additional NRC inspection activities, Entergy Arkansas expects to incur incremental expenses of approximately $50 million in 2016, of which $30.6 million was incurred as of June 30, 2016, in support of NRC inspection activities and to implement Entergy Arkansas’s performance improvement initiatives developed in 2015. A lesser amount of incremental expenses is expected to be ongoing annually after 2016, until ANO transitions out of Column 4. The NRC completed the supplemental inspection required for ANO’s Column 4 designation in February 2016, and published its inspection report in June 2016. In its inspection report, the NRC concluded that the ANO site is being operated safely and that Entergy understands the depth and breadth of performance concerns associated with ANO’s performance decline. Also in June 2016, the NRC issued a confirmatory action letter to confirm the actions Entergy Arkansas has taken and will continue to take to improve performance at ANO. The NRC will verify the completion of those actions through quarterly follow-up inspections, the results of which will determine when ANO should transition out of Column 4. Pilgrim NRC Oversight and Planned Shutdown In September 2015 the NRC placed Pilgrim in its “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column” (Column 4) of its Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix due to its finding of continuing weaknesses in Pilgrim’s corrective action program that contributed to repeated unscheduled shutdowns and equipment failures. The preliminary estimate of direct costs of Pilgrim’s response to a planned NRC enhanced inspection ranges from $45 million to $60 million in operation and maintenance expense, including approximately $30 million in 2016, of which $12 million was incurred as of June 30, 2016. The estimate does not include potential capital investment or other costs to address issues that may arise in the inspection. Entergy determined in April 2016 that it intends to refuel Pilgrim in 2017 and then cease operations May 31, 2019. In October 2015, Entergy previously announced its intention to cease operations at Pilgrim because of poor market conditions, reduced revenues, and increased operational costs. Pilgrim currently has approximately 677 MW of Capacity Supply Obligations in ISO New England through May 2019. Spent Nuclear Fuel Litigation Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the DOE is required, for a specified fee, to construct storage facilities for, and to dispose of, all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste generated by domestic nuclear power reactors. Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have been charged fees for the estimated future disposal costs of spent nuclear fuel in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The affected Entergy companies entered into contracts with the DOE, whereby the DOE is to furnish disposal services at a cost of one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983, plus a one-time fee for generation prior to that date. Entergy considers all costs incurred for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, except accrued interest, to be proper components of nuclear fuel expense. Provisions to recover such costs have been or will be made in applications to regulatory authorities for the Utility plants. Following the current Presidential administration’s defunding of the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository program, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and others sued the government seeking cessation of collection of the one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983 fee. In November 2013 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the DOE to submit a proposal to Congress to reset the fee to zero until the DOE complies with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or Congress enacts an alternative waste disposal plan. In January 2014 the DOE submitted the proposal to Congress under protest, and also filed a petition for rehearing with the D.C. Circuit. The petition for rehearing was denied. The zero spent fuel fee went into effect prospectively in May 2014. Management cannot predict the potential timing or magnitude of future spent fuel fee revisions that may occur. Because the DOE has not begun accepting spent fuel, it is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and has breached its spent fuel disposal contracts. As a result of the DOE’s failure to begin disposal of spent nuclear fuel in 1998 pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the spent fuel disposal contracts, Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have incurred and will continue to incur damages. Beginning in November 2003 these subsidiaries have pursued litigation to recover the damages caused by the DOE’s delay in performance. Following are details of final judgments recorded by Entergy in 2016 related to Entergy’s nuclear owner licensee subsidiaries litigation with the DOE. In December 2015 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $81 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 and Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick in the first round Indian Point 3/FitzPatrick damages case, and Entergy received the payment from the U.S. Treasury in June 2016. The effect of recording the Indian Point 3 proceeds was a reduction to plant, other operation and maintenance expense, and depreciation expense. The Indian Point 3 damages award included $45 million related to costs previously capitalized and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $45 million, Entergy recorded $8 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. Entergy reduced its Indian Point 3 plant asset balance by the remaining $37 million. The effect of recording the FitzPatrick proceeds was a reduction to plant and other operation and maintenance expense. The FitzPatrick damages awarded included $32 million related to costs previously capitalized and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $32 million, Entergy recorded an $11 million reduction to bring its remaining FitzPatrick plant asset balance to zero. The remaining $21 million was recorded as a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense because FitzPatrick’s plant asset balance is fully impaired. In April 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a partial judgment in the amount of $42 million in favor of Entergy Louisiana and against the DOE in the first round River Bend damages case, reserving the issue of cask loading costs pending resolution of the appeal on the same issues in the Entergy Arkansas and System Energy cases. The appeals period for the partial judgment has ended with no appeals filed, and Entergy Louisiana requested payment from the U.S. Treasury of the $42 million in June 2016 and recorded a receivable as of June 30, 2016. The primary effects of recording the receivable were reductions to plant, nuclear fuel expense, other operation and maintenance expense, and depreciation expense. The River Bend damages award included $17 million related to costs previously capitalized, $23 million related to costs previously recorded as nuclear fuel expense, and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $17 million, Entergy Louisiana recorded $3 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. Entergy Louisiana reduced its River Bend plant asset balance by the remaining $14 million. In May 2016, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and the DOE entered into a stipulation agreement and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $19 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and against the DOE in the second round Vermont Yankee damages case. Entergy received payment from the U.S. Treasury in June 2016. The effect of recording the proceeds was a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense and depreciation expense. The damages awarded included $15 million related to costs previously capitalized and $4 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $15 million, Entergy recorded $2 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. The remaining $13 million would have been recorded as a reduction to Vermont Yankee’s plant asset balance, but was recorded as a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense because Vermont Yankee’s plant asset balance is fully impaired. Management cannot predict the timing or amount of any potential recoveries on other claims filed by Entergy subsidiaries, and cannot predict the timing of any eventual receipt from the DOE of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims damage awards. Nuclear Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on nuclear liability and property insurance associated with Entergy’s nuclear power plants. Conventional Property Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s non-nuclear property insurance program. Employment Litigation See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s employment and labor-related proceedings. Asbestos Litigation (Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas) See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding asbestos litigation at Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas.
Entergy Texas [Member]
Commitments And Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries are involved in a number of legal, regulatory, and tax proceedings before various courts, regulatory commissions, and governmental agencies in the ordinary course of business. While management is unable to predict with certainty the outcome of such proceedings, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on Entergy’s results of operations, cash flows, or financial condition, except as otherwise discussed in the Form 10-K or in this report. Entergy discusses regulatory proceedings in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and herein and discusses tax proceedings in Note 3 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and Note 10 to the financial statements herein. ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the ANO stator incident and subsequent NRC reviews. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2015 the NRC issued a letter notifying Entergy of its decision to move ANO into the “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column” (Column 4) of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix. Placement into Column 4 requires significant additional NRC inspection activities at the ANO site, including a review of the site’s root cause evaluation associated with the flood barrier and stator issues, an assessment of the effectiveness of the site’s corrective action program, an additional design basis inspection, a safety culture assessment, and possibly other inspection activities consistent with the NRC’s Inspection Procedure. Entergy Arkansas incurred incremental expenses of approximately $53 million in 2015 to prepare for the NRC inspection that began in early 2016. Excluding remediation and response costs that may result from the additional NRC inspection activities, Entergy Arkansas expects to incur incremental expenses of approximately $50 million in 2016, of which $30.6 million was incurred as of June 30, 2016, in support of NRC inspection activities and to implement Entergy Arkansas’s performance improvement initiatives developed in 2015. A lesser amount of incremental expenses is expected to be ongoing annually after 2016, until ANO transitions out of Column 4. The NRC completed the supplemental inspection required for ANO’s Column 4 designation in February 2016, and published its inspection report in June 2016. In its inspection report, the NRC concluded that the ANO site is being operated safely and that Entergy understands the depth and breadth of performance concerns associated with ANO’s performance decline. Also in June 2016, the NRC issued a confirmatory action letter to confirm the actions Entergy Arkansas has taken and will continue to take to improve performance at ANO. The NRC will verify the completion of those actions through quarterly follow-up inspections, the results of which will determine when ANO should transition out of Column 4. Pilgrim NRC Oversight and Planned Shutdown In September 2015 the NRC placed Pilgrim in its “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column” (Column 4) of its Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix due to its finding of continuing weaknesses in Pilgrim’s corrective action program that contributed to repeated unscheduled shutdowns and equipment failures. The preliminary estimate of direct costs of Pilgrim’s response to a planned NRC enhanced inspection ranges from $45 million to $60 million in operation and maintenance expense, including approximately $30 million in 2016, of which $12 million was incurred as of June 30, 2016. The estimate does not include potential capital investment or other costs to address issues that may arise in the inspection. Entergy determined in April 2016 that it intends to refuel Pilgrim in 2017 and then cease operations May 31, 2019. In October 2015, Entergy previously announced its intention to cease operations at Pilgrim because of poor market conditions, reduced revenues, and increased operational costs. Pilgrim currently has approximately 677 MW of Capacity Supply Obligations in ISO New England through May 2019. Spent Nuclear Fuel Litigation Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the DOE is required, for a specified fee, to construct storage facilities for, and to dispose of, all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste generated by domestic nuclear power reactors. Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have been charged fees for the estimated future disposal costs of spent nuclear fuel in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The affected Entergy companies entered into contracts with the DOE, whereby the DOE is to furnish disposal services at a cost of one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983, plus a one-time fee for generation prior to that date. Entergy considers all costs incurred for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, except accrued interest, to be proper components of nuclear fuel expense. Provisions to recover such costs have been or will be made in applications to regulatory authorities for the Utility plants. Following the current Presidential administration’s defunding of the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository program, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and others sued the government seeking cessation of collection of the one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983 fee. In November 2013 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the DOE to submit a proposal to Congress to reset the fee to zero until the DOE complies with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or Congress enacts an alternative waste disposal plan. In January 2014 the DOE submitted the proposal to Congress under protest, and also filed a petition for rehearing with the D.C. Circuit. The petition for rehearing was denied. The zero spent fuel fee went into effect prospectively in May 2014. Management cannot predict the potential timing or magnitude of future spent fuel fee revisions that may occur. Because the DOE has not begun accepting spent fuel, it is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and has breached its spent fuel disposal contracts. As a result of the DOE’s failure to begin disposal of spent nuclear fuel in 1998 pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the spent fuel disposal contracts, Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have incurred and will continue to incur damages. Beginning in November 2003 these subsidiaries have pursued litigation to recover the damages caused by the DOE’s delay in performance. Following are details of final judgments recorded by Entergy in 2016 related to Entergy’s nuclear owner licensee subsidiaries litigation with the DOE. In December 2015 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $81 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 and Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick in the first round Indian Point 3/FitzPatrick damages case, and Entergy received the payment from the U.S. Treasury in June 2016. The effect of recording the Indian Point 3 proceeds was a reduction to plant, other operation and maintenance expense, and depreciation expense. The Indian Point 3 damages award included $45 million related to costs previously capitalized and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $45 million, Entergy recorded $8 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. Entergy reduced its Indian Point 3 plant asset balance by the remaining $37 million. The effect of recording the FitzPatrick proceeds was a reduction to plant and other operation and maintenance expense. The FitzPatrick damages awarded included $32 million related to costs previously capitalized and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $32 million, Entergy recorded an $11 million reduction to bring its remaining FitzPatrick plant asset balance to zero. The remaining $21 million was recorded as a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense because FitzPatrick’s plant asset balance is fully impaired. In April 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a partial judgment in the amount of $42 million in favor of Entergy Louisiana and against the DOE in the first round River Bend damages case, reserving the issue of cask loading costs pending resolution of the appeal on the same issues in the Entergy Arkansas and System Energy cases. The appeals period for the partial judgment has ended with no appeals filed, and Entergy Louisiana requested payment from the U.S. Treasury of the $42 million in June 2016 and recorded a receivable as of June 30, 2016. The primary effects of recording the receivable were reductions to plant, nuclear fuel expense, other operation and maintenance expense, and depreciation expense. The River Bend damages award included $17 million related to costs previously capitalized, $23 million related to costs previously recorded as nuclear fuel expense, and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $17 million, Entergy Louisiana recorded $3 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. Entergy Louisiana reduced its River Bend plant asset balance by the remaining $14 million. In May 2016, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and the DOE entered into a stipulation agreement and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $19 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and against the DOE in the second round Vermont Yankee damages case. Entergy received payment from the U.S. Treasury in June 2016. The effect of recording the proceeds was a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense and depreciation expense. The damages awarded included $15 million related to costs previously capitalized and $4 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $15 million, Entergy recorded $2 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. The remaining $13 million would have been recorded as a reduction to Vermont Yankee’s plant asset balance, but was recorded as a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense because Vermont Yankee’s plant asset balance is fully impaired. Management cannot predict the timing or amount of any potential recoveries on other claims filed by Entergy subsidiaries, and cannot predict the timing of any eventual receipt from the DOE of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims damage awards. Nuclear Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on nuclear liability and property insurance associated with Entergy’s nuclear power plants. Conventional Property Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s non-nuclear property insurance program. Employment Litigation See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s employment and labor-related proceedings. Asbestos Litigation (Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas) See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding asbestos litigation at Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas.
System Energy [Member]
Commitments And Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries are involved in a number of legal, regulatory, and tax proceedings before various courts, regulatory commissions, and governmental agencies in the ordinary course of business. While management is unable to predict with certainty the outcome of such proceedings, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on Entergy’s results of operations, cash flows, or financial condition, except as otherwise discussed in the Form 10-K or in this report. Entergy discusses regulatory proceedings in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and herein and discusses tax proceedings in Note 3 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and Note 10 to the financial statements herein. ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the ANO stator incident and subsequent NRC reviews. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2015 the NRC issued a letter notifying Entergy of its decision to move ANO into the “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column” (Column 4) of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix. Placement into Column 4 requires significant additional NRC inspection activities at the ANO site, including a review of the site’s root cause evaluation associated with the flood barrier and stator issues, an assessment of the effectiveness of the site’s corrective action program, an additional design basis inspection, a safety culture assessment, and possibly other inspection activities consistent with the NRC’s Inspection Procedure. Entergy Arkansas incurred incremental expenses of approximately $53 million in 2015 to prepare for the NRC inspection that began in early 2016. Excluding remediation and response costs that may result from the additional NRC inspection activities, Entergy Arkansas expects to incur incremental expenses of approximately $50 million in 2016, of which $30.6 million was incurred as of June 30, 2016, in support of NRC inspection activities and to implement Entergy Arkansas’s performance improvement initiatives developed in 2015. A lesser amount of incremental expenses is expected to be ongoing annually after 2016, until ANO transitions out of Column 4. The NRC completed the supplemental inspection required for ANO’s Column 4 designation in February 2016, and published its inspection report in June 2016. In its inspection report, the NRC concluded that the ANO site is being operated safely and that Entergy understands the depth and breadth of performance concerns associated with ANO’s performance decline. Also in June 2016, the NRC issued a confirmatory action letter to confirm the actions Entergy Arkansas has taken and will continue to take to improve performance at ANO. The NRC will verify the completion of those actions through quarterly follow-up inspections, the results of which will determine when ANO should transition out of Column 4. Pilgrim NRC Oversight and Planned Shutdown In September 2015 the NRC placed Pilgrim in its “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column” (Column 4) of its Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix due to its finding of continuing weaknesses in Pilgrim’s corrective action program that contributed to repeated unscheduled shutdowns and equipment failures. The preliminary estimate of direct costs of Pilgrim’s response to a planned NRC enhanced inspection ranges from $45 million to $60 million in operation and maintenance expense, including approximately $30 million in 2016, of which $12 million was incurred as of June 30, 2016. The estimate does not include potential capital investment or other costs to address issues that may arise in the inspection. Entergy determined in April 2016 that it intends to refuel Pilgrim in 2017 and then cease operations May 31, 2019. In October 2015, Entergy previously announced its intention to cease operations at Pilgrim because of poor market conditions, reduced revenues, and increased operational costs. Pilgrim currently has approximately 677 MW of Capacity Supply Obligations in ISO New England through May 2019. Spent Nuclear Fuel Litigation Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the DOE is required, for a specified fee, to construct storage facilities for, and to dispose of, all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste generated by domestic nuclear power reactors. Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have been charged fees for the estimated future disposal costs of spent nuclear fuel in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The affected Entergy companies entered into contracts with the DOE, whereby the DOE is to furnish disposal services at a cost of one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983, plus a one-time fee for generation prior to that date. Entergy considers all costs incurred for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, except accrued interest, to be proper components of nuclear fuel expense. Provisions to recover such costs have been or will be made in applications to regulatory authorities for the Utility plants. Following the current Presidential administration’s defunding of the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository program, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and others sued the government seeking cessation of collection of the one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983 fee. In November 2013 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the DOE to submit a proposal to Congress to reset the fee to zero until the DOE complies with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or Congress enacts an alternative waste disposal plan. In January 2014 the DOE submitted the proposal to Congress under protest, and also filed a petition for rehearing with the D.C. Circuit. The petition for rehearing was denied. The zero spent fuel fee went into effect prospectively in May 2014. Management cannot predict the potential timing or magnitude of future spent fuel fee revisions that may occur. Because the DOE has not begun accepting spent fuel, it is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and has breached its spent fuel disposal contracts. As a result of the DOE’s failure to begin disposal of spent nuclear fuel in 1998 pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the spent fuel disposal contracts, Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have incurred and will continue to incur damages. Beginning in November 2003 these subsidiaries have pursued litigation to recover the damages caused by the DOE’s delay in performance. Following are details of final judgments recorded by Entergy in 2016 related to Entergy’s nuclear owner licensee subsidiaries litigation with the DOE. In December 2015 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $81 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 and Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick in the first round Indian Point 3/FitzPatrick damages case, and Entergy received the payment from the U.S. Treasury in June 2016. The effect of recording the Indian Point 3 proceeds was a reduction to plant, other operation and maintenance expense, and depreciation expense. The Indian Point 3 damages award included $45 million related to costs previously capitalized and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $45 million, Entergy recorded $8 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. Entergy reduced its Indian Point 3 plant asset balance by the remaining $37 million. The effect of recording the FitzPatrick proceeds was a reduction to plant and other operation and maintenance expense. The FitzPatrick damages awarded included $32 million related to costs previously capitalized and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $32 million, Entergy recorded an $11 million reduction to bring its remaining FitzPatrick plant asset balance to zero. The remaining $21 million was recorded as a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense because FitzPatrick’s plant asset balance is fully impaired. In April 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a partial judgment in the amount of $42 million in favor of Entergy Louisiana and against the DOE in the first round River Bend damages case, reserving the issue of cask loading costs pending resolution of the appeal on the same issues in the Entergy Arkansas and System Energy cases. The appeals period for the partial judgment has ended with no appeals filed, and Entergy Louisiana requested payment from the U.S. Treasury of the $42 million in June 2016 and recorded a receivable as of June 30, 2016. The primary effects of recording the receivable were reductions to plant, nuclear fuel expense, other operation and maintenance expense, and depreciation expense. The River Bend damages award included $17 million related to costs previously capitalized, $23 million related to costs previously recorded as nuclear fuel expense, and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $17 million, Entergy Louisiana recorded $3 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. Entergy Louisiana reduced its River Bend plant asset balance by the remaining $14 million. In May 2016, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and the DOE entered into a stipulation agreement and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $19 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and against the DOE in the second round Vermont Yankee damages case. Entergy received payment from the U.S. Treasury in June 2016. The effect of recording the proceeds was a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense and depreciation expense. The damages awarded included $15 million related to costs previously capitalized and $4 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $15 million, Entergy recorded $2 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. The remaining $13 million would have been recorded as a reduction to Vermont Yankee’s plant asset balance, but was recorded as a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense because Vermont Yankee’s plant asset balance is fully impaired. Management cannot predict the timing or amount of any potential recoveries on other claims filed by Entergy subsidiaries, and cannot predict the timing of any eventual receipt from the DOE of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims damage awards. Nuclear Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on nuclear liability and property insurance associated with Entergy’s nuclear power plants. Conventional Property Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s non-nuclear property insurance program. Employment Litigation See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s employment and labor-related proceedings. Asbestos Litigation (Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas) See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding asbestos litigation at Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas.