Rate And Regulatory Matters	9 Months Ended
Rate And Regulatory Matters	Sep. 30, 2017
Public Utilities Disclosure [Text Block]	RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase in the rate from $0.01164 per kWh to $0.01547 per kWh. The APSC staff filed testimony in March 2017 recommending that the redetermined rate should be implemented with the first billing cycle of April 2017 under the normal operation of the tariff. Accordingly, the redetermined rate went into effect on March 31, 2017 pursuant to the tariff. In July 2017 the Arkansas Attorney General requested additional information to support certain of the costs included in Entergy Arkansas’s 2017 energy cost rate redetermination. Entergy Louisiana As discussed in the Form 10-K, in June 2016 the LPSC staff provided notice of audits of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings and purchased gas adjustment clause filings. The audit included a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2014 through 2015 and charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment clause for the period from 2012 through 2015. Discovery commenced in March 2017. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2010 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit included a review of the reasonableness of the charges flowed through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009. In December 2016 the LPSC opened a new docket in order to resolve an issue regarding the proper methodology for the recovery of nuclear dry fuel storage costs. In October 2017 the LPSC approved the continued recovery of the nuclear dry fuel storage costs through the fuel adjustment clause, resolving the open issue in the audit. Entergy Mississippi Mississippi Attorney General Complaint As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. The defendants have denied the allegations. In June 2017 the District Court issued a case management order setting a trial date in November 2018. Discovery is currently in progress. Entergy Texas As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2016, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2016. In December 2016, Entergy Texas entered into a stipulation and settlement agreement resulting in a $6 million disallowance not associated with any particular issue raised and a refund of the over-recovery balance of $21 million as of November 30, 2016, to most customers beginning April 2017 through June 2017. The fuel reconciliation settlement was approved by the PUCT in March 2017 and the refunds were made. In June 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application for a fuel refund of approximately $30.7 million for the months of December 2016 through April 2017. For most customers, the refunds flowed through bills for the months of July 2017 through September 2017. The fuel refund was approved by the PUCT in August 2017. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that information. Filings with the APSC 2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Arkansas is required to make a supplemental filing supporting the recovery of certain nuclear costs. In April 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion consented to by all parties requesting that it be permitted to submit its supplemental filing in conjunction with its 2017 formula rate plan filing, which was subsequently made in July 2017 and is discussed below. In May 2017 the APSC approved the joint motion and proposal to review Entergy Arkansas’s supplemental filing on a concurrent schedule with the 2017 formula rate plan filing. In doing so, however, the APSC noted that a determination of whether the supplemental information supporting certain nuclear expenditures will be considered in the hearing for the 2017 formula rate plan filing or a separate hearing will be made at a later time. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement resolving all issues in the docket and providing for recovery of the 2017 and 2018 nuclear costs. 2017 Formula Rate Plan Filing In July 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2017 formula rate plan filing showing Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the twelve months ended December 31, 2018 test period to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing projected a $129.7 million revenue requirement increase to achieve Entergy Arkansas’s target earned return on common equity of 9.75%. Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint and the projected annual revenue requirement increase exceeds the four percent, resulting in a proposed increase for the 2017 formula rate plan of $70.9 million. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC revised formula rate plan attachments that projected a $126.2 million revenue requirement increase based on acceptance of certain adjustments and recommendations made by the APSC staff and other intervenors. The revised formula rate plan filing included a proposed $71.1 million revenue requirement increase based on a revision to the four percent cap calculation. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement resolving all issues in the docket and providing for recovery of the 2017 and 2018 nuclear costs. The settlement agreement does not affect Entergy Arkansas’s proposed $71.1 million revenue requirement increase. If a final order is not issued by December 13, 2017, the proposed formula rate plan adjustment will become effective January 2, 2018, subject to refund. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed an application seeking a finding from the APSC that Entergy Arkansas’s deployment of advanced metering infrastructure is in the public interest. In June 2017 the APSC staff and Arkansas Attorney General filed direct testimony. The APSC staff generally supported Entergy Arkansas’s AMI deployment conditioned on various recommendations. The Arkansas Attorney General’s consultant primarily recommended denial of Entergy Arkansas’s application but alternatively suggested recommendations in the event the APSC approves Entergy Arkansas’s proposal. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in June 2017, substantially accepting the APSC staff’s recommendations. In August 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement. Also in August 2017 supplemental testimony was filed and a settlement hearing was held. In October 2017 the APSC issued an order finding that Entergy Arkansas’s AMI deployment is in the public interest and approving the settlement agreement subject to a minor modification. Entergy Arkansas expects to recover the undepreciated balance of its existing meters through a regulatory asset to be amortized over 15 years. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Electric 2014 Formula Rate Plan Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2015, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. In June 2017 the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed joint report of proceedings, which was accepted by the LPSC in June 2017, finalizing the results of this proceeding with no changes to rates already implemented. 2015 Formula Rate Plan Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2015 calendar year operations. In June 2017 the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed a joint report of proceedings, which was accepted by the LPSC in June 2017, finalizing the results of the May 2016 evaluation report, interim updates, and corresponding proceedings with no changes to rates already implemented. In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC a request to extend the MISO cost recovery mechanism rider provision of its formula rate plan. In March 2017 the LPSC staff submitted direct testimony generally supportive of a one-year extension of the MISO cost recovery mechanism and the intervenor in the proceeding did not oppose an extension for this period of time. In June 2017 an uncontested joint stipulation authorizing a one-year extension of the MISO cost recovery mechanism rider was filed and the LPSC approved the stipulation in July 2017. 2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing In May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2016 calendar year operations. The evaluation report reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.84%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following adjustments, however, are required under the formula rate plan. The 2016 formula rate plan evaluation report shows a decrease in formula rate plan revenue of approximately $16.9 million, comprised of a decrease in legacy Entergy Louisiana formula rate plan revenue of $3.5 million, a decrease in legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana formula rate plan revenue of $9.7 million, and a decrease in incremental formula rate plan revenue of $3.7 million. Additionally, the formula rate plan evaluation report calls for a decrease of $40.5 million in the MISO cost recovery revenue requirement from the current level of $46.8 million to $6.3 million. Rates reflecting these adjustments were implemented with the first billing cycle of September 2017, subject to refund, pending the review proceedings. Parties have intervened in the proceedings. No procedural schedule has been established. In September 2017 the LPSC issued its report indicating that no changes to Entergy Louisiana’s original formula rate plan evaluation report are required but reserved for several issues, including Entergy Louisiana’s September 2017 update to its formula rate plan evaluation report. Formula Rate Plan Extension Request In August 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed a request with the LPSC seeking to extend its formula rate plan for three years (2017-2019) with limited modifications of its terms. Those modifications include: a one-time resetting of base rates to the midpoint of the band at Entergy Louisiana’s authorized return on equity of 9.95% for the 2017 test year; narrowing of the formula rate plan bandwidth from a total of 160 basis points to 80 basis points; and a forward-looking mechanism that would allow Entergy Louisiana to recover certain transmission-related costs contemporaneously with when those projects begin delivering benefits to customers. Entergy Louisiana has requested that the LPSC consider its request on an expedited basis and render a decision by December 2017, in an effort to maintain Entergy Louisiana’s current cycle for implementing rate adjustments, i.e., September 2018, without the need for filing a full base rate case proceeding. Waterford 3 Replacement Steam Generator Project See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project prudence review proceeding. The refund to customers of approximately $71 million as a result of the settlement approved by the LPSC was made in January 2017. Following a review by the parties, an unopposed joint report of proceedings was filed by the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana in May 2017. In May 2017 the LPSC accepted the joint report of proceedings resolving the matter. Deactivation or Retirement Decisions for Entergy Louisiana Plants As a term of the LPSC-approved settlement authorizing the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station, Entergy Louisiana agreed to make a filing with the LPSC to review its decisions to deactivate Ninemile 3 and Willow Glen 2 and 4 and its decision to retire Little Gypsy 1. In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana made its compliance filing with the LPSC. Entergy Louisiana, LPSC staff, and intervenors participated in a technical conference in March 2016 where Entergy Louisiana presented information on its deactivation/retirement decisions for these four units in addition to information on the current deactivation decisions for the ten-year planning horizon. Parties have requested further proceedings on the prudence of the decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4. No party contests the prudence of the decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4 or suggests reactivation of these units; however, issues have been raised related to Entergy Louisiana’s decision to give up its transmission service rights in MISO for Willow Glen 2 and 4 rather than placing the units into suspended status for the three-year term permitted by MISO. An evidentiary hearing was held in August 2017 and post-hearing briefs were submitted in October 2017. A decision is expected in 2018. Retail Rates - Gas 2016 Rate Stabilization Plan Filing In January 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2016. The filing of the evaluation report for test year 2016 reflected an earned return on common equity of 6.37%. As part of the original filing, pursuant to the extraordinary cost provision of the rate stabilization plan, Entergy Louisiana sought to recover approximately $1.5 million in deferred operation and maintenance expenses incurred to restore service and repair damage resulting from flooding and widespread rainfall in southeast Louisiana that occurred in August 2016. Entergy Louisiana requested to recover the prudently incurred August 2016 storm restoration costs over ten years, outside of the rate stabilization plan sharing provisions. As a result, Entergy Louisiana’s filing sought an annual increase in revenue of $1.4 million. Following review of the filing, except for the proposed extraordinary cost recovery, the LPSC staff confirmed Entergy Louisiana’s filing was consistent with the principles and requirements of the rate stabilization plan. The extraordinary cost recovery request associated with the 2016 flood-related deferred operation and maintenance expenses incurred for gas operations was removed from the rate stabilization plan pending LPSC consideration in a separate docket. In April 2017 the LPSC approved a joint report of proceedings and Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised evaluation report reflecting a $1.2 million annual increase in revenue with rates implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2017. In connection with the joint report of proceedings accepted by the LPSC, in May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed an application to initiate a separate proceeding to recover the deferred operation and maintenance expenses of $1.4 million incurred to restore service and repair damage resulting from flooding and widespread rainfall in southeast Louisiana that occurred in August 2016 through the extraordinary cost provision of the gas rate stabilization plan. The LPSC staff submitted its direct testimony in the proceeding recommending recovery of $0.9 million. The procedural schedule includes a hearing in February 2018. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed an application seeking a finding from the LPSC that Entergy Louisiana’s deployment of advanced electric and gas metering infrastructure is in the public interest. The parties reached an uncontested stipulation permitting implementation of Entergy Louisiana’s proposed AMI system, with modifications to the proposed customer charge. The stipulation also confirmed that Entergy Louisiana shall continue to include in rate base the remaining book value of the existing electric meters and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. In July 2017 the LPSC approved the stipulation. Filings with the MPSC Formula Rate Plan In March 2017, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2017 test year filing and 2016 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2016 calendar year and projected earned return for the 2017 calendar year to be within the formula rate plan bandwidth, resulting in no change in rates. In June 2017, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a stipulation that confirmed that Entergy Mississippi’s earned returns for both the 2016 look-back filing and 2017 test year were within the respective formula rate plan bandwidths. In June 2017 the MPSC approved the stipulation, which resulted in no change in rates. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2016, Entergy Mississippi filed an application seeking a finding from the MPSC that Entergy Mississippi’s deployment of advanced metering infrastructure is in the public interest. In May 2017 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff and Entergy Mississippi entered into and filed a joint stipulation supporting Entergy Mississippi’s filing, and the MPSC issued an order approving the filing without any material changes, finding that Entergy Mississippi’s deployment of AMI is in the public interest and granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The MPSC order also confirmed that Entergy Mississippi shall continue to include in rate base the remaining book value of existing meters that will be retired as part of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Filings with the City Council Retail Rates As discussed in the Form 10-K, in February 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a proposed implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through March 2020. As part of the proposal, Entergy New Orleans requested that the City Council identify its desired level of funding for the program during this time period and approve a cost recovery mechanism. In April 2017 the City Council approved an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through December 2019. The City Council directed that the $11.8 million balance reported for Energy Smart funds be used to continue funding the program for Entergy New Orleans’s legacy customers and that the Energy Smart Algiers program continue to be funded through the Algiers fuel adjustment clause, until additional customer funding is required for the legacy customers. In September 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a supplemental plan and proposed several options for an interim cost recovery mechanism necessary to recover program costs during the period between when existing funds directed to Energy Smart programs are depleted (estimated to be June 2018) and when new rates from the anticipated 2018 combined rate case, which will include a cost recovery mechanism for Energy Smart funding, take effect (estimated to be August 2019). Entergy New Orleans requested that the City Council approve a cost recovery mechanism prior to June 2018. Internal Restructuring As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a restructuring that would result in the transfer of substantially all of the assets and operations of Entergy New Orleans to a new entity, which would ultimately be owned by an existing Entergy subsidiary holding company. In May 2017 the City Council adopted a resolution approving the proposed internal restructuring pursuant to an agreement in principle with the City Council advisors and certain intervenors. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans will credit retail customers $10 million in 2017, $1.4 million in the first quarter of the year after the transaction closes, and $117,500 each month in the second year after the transaction closes until such time as new base rates go into effect as a result of the anticipated 2018 base rate case. Entergy New Orleans began crediting retail customers in June 2017. In June 2017 the FERC approved the transaction and, pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans will provide additional credits to retail customers of $5 million in each of the years 2018, 2019, and 2020. Entergy New Orleans expects to complete the internal restructuring in fourth quarter 2017. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application seeking a finding from the City Council that Entergy New Orleans’s deployment of advanced electric and gas metering infrastructure is in the public interest. In April 2017, Entergy New Orleans received intervenor testimony that was generally supportive of AMI deployment. The City Council’s advisors filed testimony in May 2017 recommending the adoption of AMI subject to certain modifications, including the denial of Entergy New Orleans’s proposed customer charge as a cost recovery mechanism. In June 2017 the procedural schedule was suspended to allow for settlement discussions. A status conference was held in October 2017, and the parties set another status conference for February 2018 with the intent to continue to pursue settlement in the interim. Filings with the PUCT Retail Rates 2011 Rate Case See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Texas’s 2011 rate case. As discussed in the Form 10-K, several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced in the Form 10-K, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. In April 2016 the Third Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the District Court’s decision on all points. Entergy Texas and other parties petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. In September 2017 the Texas Supreme Court denied the petitions for review. Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the Texas Supreme Court’s denial of the petition for review. That motion is pending. Other Filings In September 2016, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider. The proposed amended TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $29.5 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers. This amount includes the approximately $10.5 million annually that Entergy Texas is currently authorized to collect through the TCRF rider. In December 2016, Entergy Texas and the PUCT reached a settlement agreeing to the amended TCRF annual revenue requirement of $29.5 million. The PUCT approved the settlement and issued a final order in March 2017. Entergy Texas implemented the amended TCRF rider beginning with bills covering usage on and after March 20, 2017. In June 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application to amend its distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider by increasing the total collection from $8.65 million to approximately $19 million. In July 2017, Entergy Texas, the PUCT, and the parties in the proceeding entered into an unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement resulting in an amended DCRF annual revenue requirement of $18.3 million, with the resulting rates effective for usage no later than October 1, 2017. In September 2017 the PUCT issued its final order approving the unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement. The amended DCRF rider rates became effective for usage on and after September 1, 2017. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing In April 2017 the Texas legislature enacted legislation that extends statutory support for AMI deployment to Entergy Texas and directs that if Entergy Texas elects to deploy AMI, it shall do so as rapidly as practicable. In July 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking an order from the PUCT approving Entergy Texas’s deployment of AMI. Entergy Texas proposed to replace existing meters with advanced meters that enable two-way data communication; design and build a secure and reliable network to support such communications; and implement support systems. AMI is intended to serve as the foundation of Entergy Texas’s modernized power grid. The filing identified a number of quantified and unquantified benefits, with Entergy Texas showing that its AMI deployment is expected to produce nominal net operational cost savings to customers of $33 million. Entergy Texas also sought to continue to include in rate base the remaining book value, approximately $41 million at December 31, 2016, of existing meters that will be retired as part of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Entergy Texas proposed a seven-year depreciable life for the new advanced meters, the three-year deployment of which is expected to begin in 2019. Entergy Texas also proposed a surcharge tariff to recover the reasonable and necessary costs it has and will incur under the deployment plan for the full deployment of advanced meters. Further, Entergy Texas is seeking approval of fees that would be charged to customers who choose to opt out of receiving service through an advanced meter and instead receive electric service with a non-standard meter. Subject to approval by the PUCT, deployment of the communications network is expected to begin in 2018. In October 2017, Entergy Texas and other parties entered into and filed an unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement. PUCT action on the stipulation and settlement agreement remains pending. Entergy Texas expects a decision from the PUCT by December 2017. Storm Cost Recovery Entergy Mississippi See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision. As of July 31, 2017, the balance in Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated storm damage provision was less than $10 million, therefore Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with September 2017 bills. System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceedings regarding the System Agreement, including the LPSC’s 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. In August 2017 the D.C. Circuit issued a decision addressing the LPSC’s appeal of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders. On the issue of the FERC’s implementation of the prospective remedy as of June 2005 and whether the bandwidth remedy should be extended for an additional 17 months in years 2004-2005, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the FERC’s implementation of the remedy and denied the LPSC’s appeal. On the issue of whether the operating companies should be required to issue refunds for the 20-month period from September 2001 to May 2003, the D.C. Circuit granted the FERC’s request for agency reconsideration and remanded that issue back to the FERC for further proceedings as requested by all parties to the appeal. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceedings As discussed in the Form 10-K, in June 2009 the LPSC filed a complaint requesting that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocated the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibited sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies. The LPSC’s complaint challenges sales made beginning in 2002 and requests refunds. In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and an ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denies Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirms FERC’s earlier rulings that Entergy’s original methodology for allocating energy costs to the opportunity sales was incorrect and, as a result, Entergy Arkansas must make payments to the other Utility operating companies to put them in the same position that they would have been in absent the incorrect allocation. The FERC clarified that interest should be included with the payments. The second order affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the rulings in the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision regarding the methodology that should be used to calculate the payments Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The FERC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that a full re-run of intra-system bills should be performed, but required that methodology be modified so that the sales have the same priority for purposes of energy allocation as joint account sales. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that adjustments to other System Agreement service schedules and excess bandwidth payments should not be taken into account when calculating the payments to be made by Entergy Arkansas. The FERC held that such adjustments and excess bandwidth payments should be taken into account, but ordered further proceedings before an ALJ to address whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology. In May 2016, Entergy Services filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order arguing that payments made by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced as a result of the timing of the LPSC’s approval of certain contracts. Entergy Services also filed a request for clarification and/or rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The APSC and the LPSC also filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order. In September 2017 the FERC issued an order denying the request for rehearing on the issue of whether any payments by Entergy Arkansas to the other Utility operating companies should be reduced due to the timing of the LPSC’s approval of Entergy Arkansas’s wholesale baseload contract with Entergy Louisiana. Pursuant to the procedural schedule established in the case, Entergy Services re-ran intra-system bills for the ten-year period 2000-2009 to quantify the effects of the FERC's ruling. In November 2016 the LPSC submitted testimony disputing certain aspects of the calculations, and Entergy Services submitted answering testimony in January 2017. In February 2017 the FERC staff filed testimony and Entergy Services filed responsive testimony. In March 2017 the LPSC filed rebuttal testimony. A hearing was held in May 2017. In July 2017 the ALJ issued an initial decision concluding that Entergy Arkansas should pay $86 million plus interest to the other Utility operating companies. In August 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, and FERC staff filed individual briefs on exceptions challenging various aspects of the initial decision. In September 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and FERC staff filed separate briefs opposing exceptions taken by various parties. The case is pending before the FERC. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing the initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order. The effect of the FERC’s decisions thus far in the case would be that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. Because further proceedings will still occur in the case, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case and its assessment of the April 2016 FERC orders, in the first quarter 2016, Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million, which includes interest, for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case, including its review of the July 2017 initial decision. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retail and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Entergy Arkansas, therefore, recorded a regulatory asset in the first quarter 2016 of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs. Complaint Against System Energy In January 2017 the APSC and MPSC filed a complaint with the FERC against System Energy. The complaint seeks a reduction in the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement pursuant to which System Energy sells its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. Entergy Arkansas also sells some of its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans under separate agreements. The current return on equity under the Unit Power Sales Agreement is 10.94%. The complaint alleges that the return on equity is unjust and unreasonable because current capital market and other considerations indicate that it is excessive. The complaint requests the FERC to institute proceedings to investigate the return on equity and establish a lower return on equity, and also requests that the FERC establish January 23, 2017 as a refund effective date. The complaint includes return on equity analysis that purports to establish that the range of reasonable return on equity for System Energy is between 8.37% and 8.67%. System Energy answered the complaint in February 2017 and disputes that a return on equity of 8.37% to 8.67% is just and reasonable. The LPSC and the City Council intervened in the proceeding expressing support for the complaint. System Energy is recording a provision against revenue for the potential outcome of this proceeding. In September 2017 the FERC established a refund effective date of January 23, 2017, consolidated the return on equity complaint proceeding with the proceeding related to System Energy’s Unit Power Sales Agreement amendments, discussed below, and directed the parties to engage in settlement proceedings before an ALJ. If the parties fail to come to an agreement during settlement proceedings, a prehearing conference will be held to establish a procedural schedule for hearing proceedings. Unit Power Sales Agreement In August 2017, System Energy submitted to the FERC proposed amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement pursuant to which System Energy sells its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. The filing proposes limited amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement to adopt (1) updated rates for use in calculating Grand Gulf plant depreciation and amortization expenses and (2) updated nuclear decommissioning cost annual revenue requirements, both of which are recovered through the Unit Power Sales Agreement rate formula. The proposed amendments would result in lower charges to the Utility operating companies that buy capacity and energy from System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The proposed changes are based on updated depreciation and nuclear decommissioning studies that take into account the renewal of Grand Gulf’s operating license for a term through November 1, 2044. System Energy requested that the FERC accept the amendments effective October 1, 2017. In September 2017 the FERC accepted System Energy’s proposed Unit Power Sales Agreement amendments, subject to further proceedings to consider the justness and reasonableness of the amendments. Because the amendments propose a rate decrease, the FERC also initiated an investigation under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act to determine if the rate decrease should be lower than proposed. The FERC accepted the proposed amendments effective October 1, 2017, subject to refund pending the outcome of the further settlement and/or hearing proceedings, and established a refund effective date of October 11, 2017 with respect to the rate decrease. The FERC also consolidated the Unit Power Sales Agreement amendment proceeding with the proceeding related to the complaint filed by the APSC and MPSC, discussed above, and directed the parties to engage in settlement proceedings before an ALJ. If the parties fail to come to an agreement during settlement proceedings, a prehearing conference will be held to establish a procedural schedule for hearing proceedings.
Entergy Arkansas [Member]
Public Utilities Disclosure [Text Block]	RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase in the rate from $0.01164 per kWh to $0.01547 per kWh. The APSC staff filed testimony in March 2017 recommending that the redetermined rate should be implemented with the first billing cycle of April 2017 under the normal operation of the tariff. Accordingly, the redetermined rate went into effect on March 31, 2017 pursuant to the tariff. In July 2017 the Arkansas Attorney General requested additional information to support certain of the costs included in Entergy Arkansas’s 2017 energy cost rate redetermination. Entergy Louisiana As discussed in the Form 10-K, in June 2016 the LPSC staff provided notice of audits of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings and purchased gas adjustment clause filings. The audit included a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2014 through 2015 and charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment clause for the period from 2012 through 2015. Discovery commenced in March 2017. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2010 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit included a review of the reasonableness of the charges flowed through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009. In December 2016 the LPSC opened a new docket in order to resolve an issue regarding the proper methodology for the recovery of nuclear dry fuel storage costs. In October 2017 the LPSC approved the continued recovery of the nuclear dry fuel storage costs through the fuel adjustment clause, resolving the open issue in the audit. Entergy Mississippi Mississippi Attorney General Complaint As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. The defendants have denied the allegations. In June 2017 the District Court issued a case management order setting a trial date in November 2018. Discovery is currently in progress. Entergy Texas As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2016, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2016. In December 2016, Entergy Texas entered into a stipulation and settlement agreement resulting in a $6 million disallowance not associated with any particular issue raised and a refund of the over-recovery balance of $21 million as of November 30, 2016, to most customers beginning April 2017 through June 2017. The fuel reconciliation settlement was approved by the PUCT in March 2017 and the refunds were made. In June 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application for a fuel refund of approximately $30.7 million for the months of December 2016 through April 2017. For most customers, the refunds flowed through bills for the months of July 2017 through September 2017. The fuel refund was approved by the PUCT in August 2017. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that information. Filings with the APSC 2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Arkansas is required to make a supplemental filing supporting the recovery of certain nuclear costs. In April 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion consented to by all parties requesting that it be permitted to submit its supplemental filing in conjunction with its 2017 formula rate plan filing, which was subsequently made in July 2017 and is discussed below. In May 2017 the APSC approved the joint motion and proposal to review Entergy Arkansas’s supplemental filing on a concurrent schedule with the 2017 formula rate plan filing. In doing so, however, the APSC noted that a determination of whether the supplemental information supporting certain nuclear expenditures will be considered in the hearing for the 2017 formula rate plan filing or a separate hearing will be made at a later time. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement resolving all issues in the docket and providing for recovery of the 2017 and 2018 nuclear costs. 2017 Formula Rate Plan Filing In July 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2017 formula rate plan filing showing Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the twelve months ended December 31, 2018 test period to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing projected a $129.7 million revenue requirement increase to achieve Entergy Arkansas’s target earned return on common equity of 9.75%. Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint and the projected annual revenue requirement increase exceeds the four percent, resulting in a proposed increase for the 2017 formula rate plan of $70.9 million. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC revised formula rate plan attachments that projected a $126.2 million revenue requirement increase based on acceptance of certain adjustments and recommendations made by the APSC staff and other intervenors. The revised formula rate plan filing included a proposed $71.1 million revenue requirement increase based on a revision to the four percent cap calculation. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement resolving all issues in the docket and providing for recovery of the 2017 and 2018 nuclear costs. The settlement agreement does not affect Entergy Arkansas’s proposed $71.1 million revenue requirement increase. If a final order is not issued by December 13, 2017, the proposed formula rate plan adjustment will become effective January 2, 2018, subject to refund. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed an application seeking a finding from the APSC that Entergy Arkansas’s deployment of advanced metering infrastructure is in the public interest. In June 2017 the APSC staff and Arkansas Attorney General filed direct testimony. The APSC staff generally supported Entergy Arkansas’s AMI deployment conditioned on various recommendations. The Arkansas Attorney General’s consultant primarily recommended denial of Entergy Arkansas’s application but alternatively suggested recommendations in the event the APSC approves Entergy Arkansas’s proposal. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in June 2017, substantially accepting the APSC staff’s recommendations. In August 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement. Also in August 2017 supplemental testimony was filed and a settlement hearing was held. In October 2017 the APSC issued an order finding that Entergy Arkansas’s AMI deployment is in the public interest and approving the settlement agreement subject to a minor modification. Entergy Arkansas expects to recover the undepreciated balance of its existing meters through a regulatory asset to be amortized over 15 years. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Electric 2014 Formula Rate Plan Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2015, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. In June 2017 the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed joint report of proceedings, which was accepted by the LPSC in June 2017, finalizing the results of this proceeding with no changes to rates already implemented. 2015 Formula Rate Plan Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2015 calendar year operations. In June 2017 the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed a joint report of proceedings, which was accepted by the LPSC in June 2017, finalizing the results of the May 2016 evaluation report, interim updates, and corresponding proceedings with no changes to rates already implemented. In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC a request to extend the MISO cost recovery mechanism rider provision of its formula rate plan. In March 2017 the LPSC staff submitted direct testimony generally supportive of a one-year extension of the MISO cost recovery mechanism and the intervenor in the proceeding did not oppose an extension for this period of time. In June 2017 an uncontested joint stipulation authorizing a one-year extension of the MISO cost recovery mechanism rider was filed and the LPSC approved the stipulation in July 2017. 2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing In May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2016 calendar year operations. The evaluation report reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.84%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following adjustments, however, are required under the formula rate plan. The 2016 formula rate plan evaluation report shows a decrease in formula rate plan revenue of approximately $16.9 million, comprised of a decrease in legacy Entergy Louisiana formula rate plan revenue of $3.5 million, a decrease in legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana formula rate plan revenue of $9.7 million, and a decrease in incremental formula rate plan revenue of $3.7 million. Additionally, the formula rate plan evaluation report calls for a decrease of $40.5 million in the MISO cost recovery revenue requirement from the current level of $46.8 million to $6.3 million. Rates reflecting these adjustments were implemented with the first billing cycle of September 2017, subject to refund, pending the review proceedings. Parties have intervened in the proceedings. No procedural schedule has been established. In September 2017 the LPSC issued its report indicating that no changes to Entergy Louisiana’s original formula rate plan evaluation report are required but reserved for several issues, including Entergy Louisiana’s September 2017 update to its formula rate plan evaluation report. Formula Rate Plan Extension Request In August 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed a request with the LPSC seeking to extend its formula rate plan for three years (2017-2019) with limited modifications of its terms. Those modifications include: a one-time resetting of base rates to the midpoint of the band at Entergy Louisiana’s authorized return on equity of 9.95% for the 2017 test year; narrowing of the formula rate plan bandwidth from a total of 160 basis points to 80 basis points; and a forward-looking mechanism that would allow Entergy Louisiana to recover certain transmission-related costs contemporaneously with when those projects begin delivering benefits to customers. Entergy Louisiana has requested that the LPSC consider its request on an expedited basis and render a decision by December 2017, in an effort to maintain Entergy Louisiana’s current cycle for implementing rate adjustments, i.e., September 2018, without the need for filing a full base rate case proceeding. Waterford 3 Replacement Steam Generator Project See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project prudence review proceeding. The refund to customers of approximately $71 million as a result of the settlement approved by the LPSC was made in January 2017. Following a review by the parties, an unopposed joint report of proceedings was filed by the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana in May 2017. In May 2017 the LPSC accepted the joint report of proceedings resolving the matter. Deactivation or Retirement Decisions for Entergy Louisiana Plants As a term of the LPSC-approved settlement authorizing the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station, Entergy Louisiana agreed to make a filing with the LPSC to review its decisions to deactivate Ninemile 3 and Willow Glen 2 and 4 and its decision to retire Little Gypsy 1. In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana made its compliance filing with the LPSC. Entergy Louisiana, LPSC staff, and intervenors participated in a technical conference in March 2016 where Entergy Louisiana presented information on its deactivation/retirement decisions for these four units in addition to information on the current deactivation decisions for the ten-year planning horizon. Parties have requested further proceedings on the prudence of the decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4. No party contests the prudence of the decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4 or suggests reactivation of these units; however, issues have been raised related to Entergy Louisiana’s decision to give up its transmission service rights in MISO for Willow Glen 2 and 4 rather than placing the units into suspended status for the three-year term permitted by MISO. An evidentiary hearing was held in August 2017 and post-hearing briefs were submitted in October 2017. A decision is expected in 2018. Retail Rates - Gas 2016 Rate Stabilization Plan Filing In January 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2016. The filing of the evaluation report for test year 2016 reflected an earned return on common equity of 6.37%. As part of the original filing, pursuant to the extraordinary cost provision of the rate stabilization plan, Entergy Louisiana sought to recover approximately $1.5 million in deferred operation and maintenance expenses incurred to restore service and repair damage resulting from flooding and widespread rainfall in southeast Louisiana that occurred in August 2016. Entergy Louisiana requested to recover the prudently incurred August 2016 storm restoration costs over ten years, outside of the rate stabilization plan sharing provisions. As a result, Entergy Louisiana’s filing sought an annual increase in revenue of $1.4 million. Following review of the filing, except for the proposed extraordinary cost recovery, the LPSC staff confirmed Entergy Louisiana’s filing was consistent with the principles and requirements of the rate stabilization plan. The extraordinary cost recovery request associated with the 2016 flood-related deferred operation and maintenance expenses incurred for gas operations was removed from the rate stabilization plan pending LPSC consideration in a separate docket. In April 2017 the LPSC approved a joint report of proceedings and Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised evaluation report reflecting a $1.2 million annual increase in revenue with rates implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2017. In connection with the joint report of proceedings accepted by the LPSC, in May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed an application to initiate a separate proceeding to recover the deferred operation and maintenance expenses of $1.4 million incurred to restore service and repair damage resulting from flooding and widespread rainfall in southeast Louisiana that occurred in August 2016 through the extraordinary cost provision of the gas rate stabilization plan. The LPSC staff submitted its direct testimony in the proceeding recommending recovery of $0.9 million. The procedural schedule includes a hearing in February 2018. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed an application seeking a finding from the LPSC that Entergy Louisiana’s deployment of advanced electric and gas metering infrastructure is in the public interest. The parties reached an uncontested stipulation permitting implementation of Entergy Louisiana’s proposed AMI system, with modifications to the proposed customer charge. The stipulation also confirmed that Entergy Louisiana shall continue to include in rate base the remaining book value of the existing electric meters and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. In July 2017 the LPSC approved the stipulation. Filings with the MPSC Formula Rate Plan In March 2017, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2017 test year filing and 2016 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2016 calendar year and projected earned return for the 2017 calendar year to be within the formula rate plan bandwidth, resulting in no change in rates. In June 2017, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a stipulation that confirmed that Entergy Mississippi’s earned returns for both the 2016 look-back filing and 2017 test year were within the respective formula rate plan bandwidths. In June 2017 the MPSC approved the stipulation, which resulted in no change in rates. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2016, Entergy Mississippi filed an application seeking a finding from the MPSC that Entergy Mississippi’s deployment of advanced metering infrastructure is in the public interest. In May 2017 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff and Entergy Mississippi entered into and filed a joint stipulation supporting Entergy Mississippi’s filing, and the MPSC issued an order approving the filing without any material changes, finding that Entergy Mississippi’s deployment of AMI is in the public interest and granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The MPSC order also confirmed that Entergy Mississippi shall continue to include in rate base the remaining book value of existing meters that will be retired as part of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Filings with the City Council Retail Rates As discussed in the Form 10-K, in February 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a proposed implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through March 2020. As part of the proposal, Entergy New Orleans requested that the City Council identify its desired level of funding for the program during this time period and approve a cost recovery mechanism. In April 2017 the City Council approved an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through December 2019. The City Council directed that the $11.8 million balance reported for Energy Smart funds be used to continue funding the program for Entergy New Orleans’s legacy customers and that the Energy Smart Algiers program continue to be funded through the Algiers fuel adjustment clause, until additional customer funding is required for the legacy customers. In September 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a supplemental plan and proposed several options for an interim cost recovery mechanism necessary to recover program costs during the period between when existing funds directed to Energy Smart programs are depleted (estimated to be June 2018) and when new rates from the anticipated 2018 combined rate case, which will include a cost recovery mechanism for Energy Smart funding, take effect (estimated to be August 2019). Entergy New Orleans requested that the City Council approve a cost recovery mechanism prior to June 2018. Internal Restructuring As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a restructuring that would result in the transfer of substantially all of the assets and operations of Entergy New Orleans to a new entity, which would ultimately be owned by an existing Entergy subsidiary holding company. In May 2017 the City Council adopted a resolution approving the proposed internal restructuring pursuant to an agreement in principle with the City Council advisors and certain intervenors. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans will credit retail customers $10 million in 2017, $1.4 million in the first quarter of the year after the transaction closes, and $117,500 each month in the second year after the transaction closes until such time as new base rates go into effect as a result of the anticipated 2018 base rate case. Entergy New Orleans began crediting retail customers in June 2017. In June 2017 the FERC approved the transaction and, pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans will provide additional credits to retail customers of $5 million in each of the years 2018, 2019, and 2020. Entergy New Orleans expects to complete the internal restructuring in fourth quarter 2017. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application seeking a finding from the City Council that Entergy New Orleans’s deployment of advanced electric and gas metering infrastructure is in the public interest. In April 2017, Entergy New Orleans received intervenor testimony that was generally supportive of AMI deployment. The City Council’s advisors filed testimony in May 2017 recommending the adoption of AMI subject to certain modifications, including the denial of Entergy New Orleans’s proposed customer charge as a cost recovery mechanism. In June 2017 the procedural schedule was suspended to allow for settlement discussions. A status conference was held in October 2017, and the parties set another status conference for February 2018 with the intent to continue to pursue settlement in the interim. Filings with the PUCT Retail Rates 2011 Rate Case See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Texas’s 2011 rate case. As discussed in the Form 10-K, several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced in the Form 10-K, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. In April 2016 the Third Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the District Court’s decision on all points. Entergy Texas and other parties petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. In September 2017 the Texas Supreme Court denied the petitions for review. Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the Texas Supreme Court’s denial of the petition for review. That motion is pending. Other Filings In September 2016, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider. The proposed amended TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $29.5 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers. This amount includes the approximately $10.5 million annually that Entergy Texas is currently authorized to collect through the TCRF rider. In December 2016, Entergy Texas and the PUCT reached a settlement agreeing to the amended TCRF annual revenue requirement of $29.5 million. The PUCT approved the settlement and issued a final order in March 2017. Entergy Texas implemented the amended TCRF rider beginning with bills covering usage on and after March 20, 2017. In June 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application to amend its distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider by increasing the total collection from $8.65 million to approximately $19 million. In July 2017, Entergy Texas, the PUCT, and the parties in the proceeding entered into an unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement resulting in an amended DCRF annual revenue requirement of $18.3 million, with the resulting rates effective for usage no later than October 1, 2017. In September 2017 the PUCT issued its final order approving the unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement. The amended DCRF rider rates became effective for usage on and after September 1, 2017. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing In April 2017 the Texas legislature enacted legislation that extends statutory support for AMI deployment to Entergy Texas and directs that if Entergy Texas elects to deploy AMI, it shall do so as rapidly as practicable. In July 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking an order from the PUCT approving Entergy Texas’s deployment of AMI. Entergy Texas proposed to replace existing meters with advanced meters that enable two-way data communication; design and build a secure and reliable network to support such communications; and implement support systems. AMI is intended to serve as the foundation of Entergy Texas’s modernized power grid. The filing identified a number of quantified and unquantified benefits, with Entergy Texas showing that its AMI deployment is expected to produce nominal net operational cost savings to customers of $33 million. Entergy Texas also sought to continue to include in rate base the remaining book value, approximately $41 million at December 31, 2016, of existing meters that will be retired as part of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Entergy Texas proposed a seven-year depreciable life for the new advanced meters, the three-year deployment of which is expected to begin in 2019. Entergy Texas also proposed a surcharge tariff to recover the reasonable and necessary costs it has and will incur under the deployment plan for the full deployment of advanced meters. Further, Entergy Texas is seeking approval of fees that would be charged to customers who choose to opt out of receiving service through an advanced meter and instead receive electric service with a non-standard meter. Subject to approval by the PUCT, deployment of the communications network is expected to begin in 2018. In October 2017, Entergy Texas and other parties entered into and filed an unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement. PUCT action on the stipulation and settlement agreement remains pending. Entergy Texas expects a decision from the PUCT by December 2017. Storm Cost Recovery Entergy Mississippi See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision. As of July 31, 2017, the balance in Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated storm damage provision was less than $10 million, therefore Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with September 2017 bills. System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceedings regarding the System Agreement, including the LPSC’s 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. In August 2017 the D.C. Circuit issued a decision addressing the LPSC’s appeal of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders. On the issue of the FERC’s implementation of the prospective remedy as of June 2005 and whether the bandwidth remedy should be extended for an additional 17 months in years 2004-2005, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the FERC’s implementation of the remedy and denied the LPSC’s appeal. On the issue of whether the operating companies should be required to issue refunds for the 20-month period from September 2001 to May 2003, the D.C. Circuit granted the FERC’s request for agency reconsideration and remanded that issue back to the FERC for further proceedings as requested by all parties to the appeal. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceedings As discussed in the Form 10-K, in June 2009 the LPSC filed a complaint requesting that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocated the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibited sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies. The LPSC’s complaint challenges sales made beginning in 2002 and requests refunds. In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and an ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denies Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirms FERC’s earlier rulings that Entergy’s original methodology for allocating energy costs to the opportunity sales was incorrect and, as a result, Entergy Arkansas must make payments to the other Utility operating companies to put them in the same position that they would have been in absent the incorrect allocation. The FERC clarified that interest should be included with the payments. The second order affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the rulings in the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision regarding the methodology that should be used to calculate the payments Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The FERC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that a full re-run of intra-system bills should be performed, but required that methodology be modified so that the sales have the same priority for purposes of energy allocation as joint account sales. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that adjustments to other System Agreement service schedules and excess bandwidth payments should not be taken into account when calculating the payments to be made by Entergy Arkansas. The FERC held that such adjustments and excess bandwidth payments should be taken into account, but ordered further proceedings before an ALJ to address whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology. In May 2016, Entergy Services filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order arguing that payments made by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced as a result of the timing of the LPSC’s approval of certain contracts. Entergy Services also filed a request for clarification and/or rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The APSC and the LPSC also filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order. In September 2017 the FERC issued an order denying the request for rehearing on the issue of whether any payments by Entergy Arkansas to the other Utility operating companies should be reduced due to the timing of the LPSC’s approval of Entergy Arkansas’s wholesale baseload contract with Entergy Louisiana. Pursuant to the procedural schedule established in the case, Entergy Services re-ran intra-system bills for the ten-year period 2000-2009 to quantify the effects of the FERC's ruling. In November 2016 the LPSC submitted testimony disputing certain aspects of the calculations, and Entergy Services submitted answering testimony in January 2017. In February 2017 the FERC staff filed testimony and Entergy Services filed responsive testimony. In March 2017 the LPSC filed rebuttal testimony. A hearing was held in May 2017. In July 2017 the ALJ issued an initial decision concluding that Entergy Arkansas should pay $86 million plus interest to the other Utility operating companies. In August 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, and FERC staff filed individual briefs on exceptions challenging various aspects of the initial decision. In September 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and FERC staff filed separate briefs opposing exceptions taken by various parties. The case is pending before the FERC. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing the initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order. The effect of the FERC’s decisions thus far in the case would be that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. Because further proceedings will still occur in the case, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case and its assessment of the April 2016 FERC orders, in the first quarter 2016, Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million, which includes interest, for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case, including its review of the July 2017 initial decision. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retail and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Entergy Arkansas, therefore, recorded a regulatory asset in the first quarter 2016 of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs. Complaint Against System Energy In January 2017 the APSC and MPSC filed a complaint with the FERC against System Energy. The complaint seeks a reduction in the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement pursuant to which System Energy sells its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. Entergy Arkansas also sells some of its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans under separate agreements. The current return on equity under the Unit Power Sales Agreement is 10.94%. The complaint alleges that the return on equity is unjust and unreasonable because current capital market and other considerations indicate that it is excessive. The complaint requests the FERC to institute proceedings to investigate the return on equity and establish a lower return on equity, and also requests that the FERC establish January 23, 2017 as a refund effective date. The complaint includes return on equity analysis that purports to establish that the range of reasonable return on equity for System Energy is between 8.37% and 8.67%. System Energy answered the complaint in February 2017 and disputes that a return on equity of 8.37% to 8.67% is just and reasonable. The LPSC and the City Council intervened in the proceeding expressing support for the complaint. System Energy is recording a provision against revenue for the potential outcome of this proceeding. In September 2017 the FERC established a refund effective date of January 23, 2017, consolidated the return on equity complaint proceeding with the proceeding related to System Energy’s Unit Power Sales Agreement amendments, discussed below, and directed the parties to engage in settlement proceedings before an ALJ. If the parties fail to come to an agreement during settlement proceedings, a prehearing conference will be held to establish a procedural schedule for hearing proceedings. Unit Power Sales Agreement In August 2017, System Energy submitted to the FERC proposed amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement pursuant to which System Energy sells its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. The filing proposes limited amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement to adopt (1) updated rates for use in calculating Grand Gulf plant depreciation and amortization expenses and (2) updated nuclear decommissioning cost annual revenue requirements, both of which are recovered through the Unit Power Sales Agreement rate formula. The proposed amendments would result in lower charges to the Utility operating companies that buy capacity and energy from System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The proposed changes are based on updated depreciation and nuclear decommissioning studies that take into account the renewal of Grand Gulf’s operating license for a term through November 1, 2044. System Energy requested that the FERC accept the amendments effective October 1, 2017. In September 2017 the FERC accepted System Energy’s proposed Unit Power Sales Agreement amendments, subject to further proceedings to consider the justness and reasonableness of the amendments. Because the amendments propose a rate decrease, the FERC also initiated an investigation under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act to determine if the rate decrease should be lower than proposed. The FERC accepted the proposed amendments effective October 1, 2017, subject to refund pending the outcome of the further settlement and/or hearing proceedings, and established a refund effective date of October 11, 2017 with respect to the rate decrease. The FERC also consolidated the Unit Power Sales Agreement amendment proceeding with the proceeding related to the complaint filed by the APSC and MPSC, discussed above, and directed the parties to engage in settlement proceedings before an ALJ. If the parties fail to come to an agreement during settlement proceedings, a prehearing conference will be held to establish a procedural schedule for hearing proceedings.
Entergy Louisiana [Member]
Public Utilities Disclosure [Text Block]	RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase in the rate from $0.01164 per kWh to $0.01547 per kWh. The APSC staff filed testimony in March 2017 recommending that the redetermined rate should be implemented with the first billing cycle of April 2017 under the normal operation of the tariff. Accordingly, the redetermined rate went into effect on March 31, 2017 pursuant to the tariff. In July 2017 the Arkansas Attorney General requested additional information to support certain of the costs included in Entergy Arkansas’s 2017 energy cost rate redetermination. Entergy Louisiana As discussed in the Form 10-K, in June 2016 the LPSC staff provided notice of audits of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings and purchased gas adjustment clause filings. The audit included a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2014 through 2015 and charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment clause for the period from 2012 through 2015. Discovery commenced in March 2017. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2010 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit included a review of the reasonableness of the charges flowed through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009. In December 2016 the LPSC opened a new docket in order to resolve an issue regarding the proper methodology for the recovery of nuclear dry fuel storage costs. In October 2017 the LPSC approved the continued recovery of the nuclear dry fuel storage costs through the fuel adjustment clause, resolving the open issue in the audit. Entergy Mississippi Mississippi Attorney General Complaint As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. The defendants have denied the allegations. In June 2017 the District Court issued a case management order setting a trial date in November 2018. Discovery is currently in progress. Entergy Texas As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2016, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2016. In December 2016, Entergy Texas entered into a stipulation and settlement agreement resulting in a $6 million disallowance not associated with any particular issue raised and a refund of the over-recovery balance of $21 million as of November 30, 2016, to most customers beginning April 2017 through June 2017. The fuel reconciliation settlement was approved by the PUCT in March 2017 and the refunds were made. In June 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application for a fuel refund of approximately $30.7 million for the months of December 2016 through April 2017. For most customers, the refunds flowed through bills for the months of July 2017 through September 2017. The fuel refund was approved by the PUCT in August 2017. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that information. Filings with the APSC 2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Arkansas is required to make a supplemental filing supporting the recovery of certain nuclear costs. In April 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion consented to by all parties requesting that it be permitted to submit its supplemental filing in conjunction with its 2017 formula rate plan filing, which was subsequently made in July 2017 and is discussed below. In May 2017 the APSC approved the joint motion and proposal to review Entergy Arkansas’s supplemental filing on a concurrent schedule with the 2017 formula rate plan filing. In doing so, however, the APSC noted that a determination of whether the supplemental information supporting certain nuclear expenditures will be considered in the hearing for the 2017 formula rate plan filing or a separate hearing will be made at a later time. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement resolving all issues in the docket and providing for recovery of the 2017 and 2018 nuclear costs. 2017 Formula Rate Plan Filing In July 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2017 formula rate plan filing showing Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the twelve months ended December 31, 2018 test period to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing projected a $129.7 million revenue requirement increase to achieve Entergy Arkansas’s target earned return on common equity of 9.75%. Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint and the projected annual revenue requirement increase exceeds the four percent, resulting in a proposed increase for the 2017 formula rate plan of $70.9 million. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC revised formula rate plan attachments that projected a $126.2 million revenue requirement increase based on acceptance of certain adjustments and recommendations made by the APSC staff and other intervenors. The revised formula rate plan filing included a proposed $71.1 million revenue requirement increase based on a revision to the four percent cap calculation. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement resolving all issues in the docket and providing for recovery of the 2017 and 2018 nuclear costs. The settlement agreement does not affect Entergy Arkansas’s proposed $71.1 million revenue requirement increase. If a final order is not issued by December 13, 2017, the proposed formula rate plan adjustment will become effective January 2, 2018, subject to refund. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed an application seeking a finding from the APSC that Entergy Arkansas’s deployment of advanced metering infrastructure is in the public interest. In June 2017 the APSC staff and Arkansas Attorney General filed direct testimony. The APSC staff generally supported Entergy Arkansas’s AMI deployment conditioned on various recommendations. The Arkansas Attorney General’s consultant primarily recommended denial of Entergy Arkansas’s application but alternatively suggested recommendations in the event the APSC approves Entergy Arkansas’s proposal. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in June 2017, substantially accepting the APSC staff’s recommendations. In August 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement. Also in August 2017 supplemental testimony was filed and a settlement hearing was held. In October 2017 the APSC issued an order finding that Entergy Arkansas’s AMI deployment is in the public interest and approving the settlement agreement subject to a minor modification. Entergy Arkansas expects to recover the undepreciated balance of its existing meters through a regulatory asset to be amortized over 15 years. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Electric 2014 Formula Rate Plan Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2015, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. In June 2017 the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed joint report of proceedings, which was accepted by the LPSC in June 2017, finalizing the results of this proceeding with no changes to rates already implemented. 2015 Formula Rate Plan Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2015 calendar year operations. In June 2017 the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed a joint report of proceedings, which was accepted by the LPSC in June 2017, finalizing the results of the May 2016 evaluation report, interim updates, and corresponding proceedings with no changes to rates already implemented. In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC a request to extend the MISO cost recovery mechanism rider provision of its formula rate plan. In March 2017 the LPSC staff submitted direct testimony generally supportive of a one-year extension of the MISO cost recovery mechanism and the intervenor in the proceeding did not oppose an extension for this period of time. In June 2017 an uncontested joint stipulation authorizing a one-year extension of the MISO cost recovery mechanism rider was filed and the LPSC approved the stipulation in July 2017. 2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing In May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2016 calendar year operations. The evaluation report reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.84%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following adjustments, however, are required under the formula rate plan. The 2016 formula rate plan evaluation report shows a decrease in formula rate plan revenue of approximately $16.9 million, comprised of a decrease in legacy Entergy Louisiana formula rate plan revenue of $3.5 million, a decrease in legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana formula rate plan revenue of $9.7 million, and a decrease in incremental formula rate plan revenue of $3.7 million. Additionally, the formula rate plan evaluation report calls for a decrease of $40.5 million in the MISO cost recovery revenue requirement from the current level of $46.8 million to $6.3 million. Rates reflecting these adjustments were implemented with the first billing cycle of September 2017, subject to refund, pending the review proceedings. Parties have intervened in the proceedings. No procedural schedule has been established. In September 2017 the LPSC issued its report indicating that no changes to Entergy Louisiana’s original formula rate plan evaluation report are required but reserved for several issues, including Entergy Louisiana’s September 2017 update to its formula rate plan evaluation report. Formula Rate Plan Extension Request In August 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed a request with the LPSC seeking to extend its formula rate plan for three years (2017-2019) with limited modifications of its terms. Those modifications include: a one-time resetting of base rates to the midpoint of the band at Entergy Louisiana’s authorized return on equity of 9.95% for the 2017 test year; narrowing of the formula rate plan bandwidth from a total of 160 basis points to 80 basis points; and a forward-looking mechanism that would allow Entergy Louisiana to recover certain transmission-related costs contemporaneously with when those projects begin delivering benefits to customers. Entergy Louisiana has requested that the LPSC consider its request on an expedited basis and render a decision by December 2017, in an effort to maintain Entergy Louisiana’s current cycle for implementing rate adjustments, i.e., September 2018, without the need for filing a full base rate case proceeding. Waterford 3 Replacement Steam Generator Project See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project prudence review proceeding. The refund to customers of approximately $71 million as a result of the settlement approved by the LPSC was made in January 2017. Following a review by the parties, an unopposed joint report of proceedings was filed by the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana in May 2017. In May 2017 the LPSC accepted the joint report of proceedings resolving the matter. Deactivation or Retirement Decisions for Entergy Louisiana Plants As a term of the LPSC-approved settlement authorizing the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station, Entergy Louisiana agreed to make a filing with the LPSC to review its decisions to deactivate Ninemile 3 and Willow Glen 2 and 4 and its decision to retire Little Gypsy 1. In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana made its compliance filing with the LPSC. Entergy Louisiana, LPSC staff, and intervenors participated in a technical conference in March 2016 where Entergy Louisiana presented information on its deactivation/retirement decisions for these four units in addition to information on the current deactivation decisions for the ten-year planning horizon. Parties have requested further proceedings on the prudence of the decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4. No party contests the prudence of the decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4 or suggests reactivation of these units; however, issues have been raised related to Entergy Louisiana’s decision to give up its transmission service rights in MISO for Willow Glen 2 and 4 rather than placing the units into suspended status for the three-year term permitted by MISO. An evidentiary hearing was held in August 2017 and post-hearing briefs were submitted in October 2017. A decision is expected in 2018. Retail Rates - Gas 2016 Rate Stabilization Plan Filing In January 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2016. The filing of the evaluation report for test year 2016 reflected an earned return on common equity of 6.37%. As part of the original filing, pursuant to the extraordinary cost provision of the rate stabilization plan, Entergy Louisiana sought to recover approximately $1.5 million in deferred operation and maintenance expenses incurred to restore service and repair damage resulting from flooding and widespread rainfall in southeast Louisiana that occurred in August 2016. Entergy Louisiana requested to recover the prudently incurred August 2016 storm restoration costs over ten years, outside of the rate stabilization plan sharing provisions. As a result, Entergy Louisiana’s filing sought an annual increase in revenue of $1.4 million. Following review of the filing, except for the proposed extraordinary cost recovery, the LPSC staff confirmed Entergy Louisiana’s filing was consistent with the principles and requirements of the rate stabilization plan. The extraordinary cost recovery request associated with the 2016 flood-related deferred operation and maintenance expenses incurred for gas operations was removed from the rate stabilization plan pending LPSC consideration in a separate docket. In April 2017 the LPSC approved a joint report of proceedings and Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised evaluation report reflecting a $1.2 million annual increase in revenue with rates implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2017. In connection with the joint report of proceedings accepted by the LPSC, in May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed an application to initiate a separate proceeding to recover the deferred operation and maintenance expenses of $1.4 million incurred to restore service and repair damage resulting from flooding and widespread rainfall in southeast Louisiana that occurred in August 2016 through the extraordinary cost provision of the gas rate stabilization plan. The LPSC staff submitted its direct testimony in the proceeding recommending recovery of $0.9 million. The procedural schedule includes a hearing in February 2018. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed an application seeking a finding from the LPSC that Entergy Louisiana’s deployment of advanced electric and gas metering infrastructure is in the public interest. The parties reached an uncontested stipulation permitting implementation of Entergy Louisiana’s proposed AMI system, with modifications to the proposed customer charge. The stipulation also confirmed that Entergy Louisiana shall continue to include in rate base the remaining book value of the existing electric meters and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. In July 2017 the LPSC approved the stipulation. Filings with the MPSC Formula Rate Plan In March 2017, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2017 test year filing and 2016 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2016 calendar year and projected earned return for the 2017 calendar year to be within the formula rate plan bandwidth, resulting in no change in rates. In June 2017, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a stipulation that confirmed that Entergy Mississippi’s earned returns for both the 2016 look-back filing and 2017 test year were within the respective formula rate plan bandwidths. In June 2017 the MPSC approved the stipulation, which resulted in no change in rates. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2016, Entergy Mississippi filed an application seeking a finding from the MPSC that Entergy Mississippi’s deployment of advanced metering infrastructure is in the public interest. In May 2017 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff and Entergy Mississippi entered into and filed a joint stipulation supporting Entergy Mississippi’s filing, and the MPSC issued an order approving the filing without any material changes, finding that Entergy Mississippi’s deployment of AMI is in the public interest and granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The MPSC order also confirmed that Entergy Mississippi shall continue to include in rate base the remaining book value of existing meters that will be retired as part of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Filings with the City Council Retail Rates As discussed in the Form 10-K, in February 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a proposed implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through March 2020. As part of the proposal, Entergy New Orleans requested that the City Council identify its desired level of funding for the program during this time period and approve a cost recovery mechanism. In April 2017 the City Council approved an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through December 2019. The City Council directed that the $11.8 million balance reported for Energy Smart funds be used to continue funding the program for Entergy New Orleans’s legacy customers and that the Energy Smart Algiers program continue to be funded through the Algiers fuel adjustment clause, until additional customer funding is required for the legacy customers. In September 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a supplemental plan and proposed several options for an interim cost recovery mechanism necessary to recover program costs during the period between when existing funds directed to Energy Smart programs are depleted (estimated to be June 2018) and when new rates from the anticipated 2018 combined rate case, which will include a cost recovery mechanism for Energy Smart funding, take effect (estimated to be August 2019). Entergy New Orleans requested that the City Council approve a cost recovery mechanism prior to June 2018. Internal Restructuring As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a restructuring that would result in the transfer of substantially all of the assets and operations of Entergy New Orleans to a new entity, which would ultimately be owned by an existing Entergy subsidiary holding company. In May 2017 the City Council adopted a resolution approving the proposed internal restructuring pursuant to an agreement in principle with the City Council advisors and certain intervenors. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans will credit retail customers $10 million in 2017, $1.4 million in the first quarter of the year after the transaction closes, and $117,500 each month in the second year after the transaction closes until such time as new base rates go into effect as a result of the anticipated 2018 base rate case. Entergy New Orleans began crediting retail customers in June 2017. In June 2017 the FERC approved the transaction and, pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans will provide additional credits to retail customers of $5 million in each of the years 2018, 2019, and 2020. Entergy New Orleans expects to complete the internal restructuring in fourth quarter 2017. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application seeking a finding from the City Council that Entergy New Orleans’s deployment of advanced electric and gas metering infrastructure is in the public interest. In April 2017, Entergy New Orleans received intervenor testimony that was generally supportive of AMI deployment. The City Council’s advisors filed testimony in May 2017 recommending the adoption of AMI subject to certain modifications, including the denial of Entergy New Orleans’s proposed customer charge as a cost recovery mechanism. In June 2017 the procedural schedule was suspended to allow for settlement discussions. A status conference was held in October 2017, and the parties set another status conference for February 2018 with the intent to continue to pursue settlement in the interim. Filings with the PUCT Retail Rates 2011 Rate Case See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Texas’s 2011 rate case. As discussed in the Form 10-K, several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced in the Form 10-K, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. In April 2016 the Third Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the District Court’s decision on all points. Entergy Texas and other parties petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. In September 2017 the Texas Supreme Court denied the petitions for review. Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the Texas Supreme Court’s denial of the petition for review. That motion is pending. Other Filings In September 2016, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider. The proposed amended TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $29.5 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers. This amount includes the approximately $10.5 million annually that Entergy Texas is currently authorized to collect through the TCRF rider. In December 2016, Entergy Texas and the PUCT reached a settlement agreeing to the amended TCRF annual revenue requirement of $29.5 million. The PUCT approved the settlement and issued a final order in March 2017. Entergy Texas implemented the amended TCRF rider beginning with bills covering usage on and after March 20, 2017. In June 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application to amend its distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider by increasing the total collection from $8.65 million to approximately $19 million. In July 2017, Entergy Texas, the PUCT, and the parties in the proceeding entered into an unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement resulting in an amended DCRF annual revenue requirement of $18.3 million, with the resulting rates effective for usage no later than October 1, 2017. In September 2017 the PUCT issued its final order approving the unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement. The amended DCRF rider rates became effective for usage on and after September 1, 2017. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing In April 2017 the Texas legislature enacted legislation that extends statutory support for AMI deployment to Entergy Texas and directs that if Entergy Texas elects to deploy AMI, it shall do so as rapidly as practicable. In July 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking an order from the PUCT approving Entergy Texas’s deployment of AMI. Entergy Texas proposed to replace existing meters with advanced meters that enable two-way data communication; design and build a secure and reliable network to support such communications; and implement support systems. AMI is intended to serve as the foundation of Entergy Texas’s modernized power grid. The filing identified a number of quantified and unquantified benefits, with Entergy Texas showing that its AMI deployment is expected to produce nominal net operational cost savings to customers of $33 million. Entergy Texas also sought to continue to include in rate base the remaining book value, approximately $41 million at December 31, 2016, of existing meters that will be retired as part of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Entergy Texas proposed a seven-year depreciable life for the new advanced meters, the three-year deployment of which is expected to begin in 2019. Entergy Texas also proposed a surcharge tariff to recover the reasonable and necessary costs it has and will incur under the deployment plan for the full deployment of advanced meters. Further, Entergy Texas is seeking approval of fees that would be charged to customers who choose to opt out of receiving service through an advanced meter and instead receive electric service with a non-standard meter. Subject to approval by the PUCT, deployment of the communications network is expected to begin in 2018. In October 2017, Entergy Texas and other parties entered into and filed an unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement. PUCT action on the stipulation and settlement agreement remains pending. Entergy Texas expects a decision from the PUCT by December 2017. Storm Cost Recovery Entergy Mississippi See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision. As of July 31, 2017, the balance in Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated storm damage provision was less than $10 million, therefore Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with September 2017 bills. System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceedings regarding the System Agreement, including the LPSC’s 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. In August 2017 the D.C. Circuit issued a decision addressing the LPSC’s appeal of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders. On the issue of the FERC’s implementation of the prospective remedy as of June 2005 and whether the bandwidth remedy should be extended for an additional 17 months in years 2004-2005, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the FERC’s implementation of the remedy and denied the LPSC’s appeal. On the issue of whether the operating companies should be required to issue refunds for the 20-month period from September 2001 to May 2003, the D.C. Circuit granted the FERC’s request for agency reconsideration and remanded that issue back to the FERC for further proceedings as requested by all parties to the appeal. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceedings As discussed in the Form 10-K, in June 2009 the LPSC filed a complaint requesting that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocated the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibited sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies. The LPSC’s complaint challenges sales made beginning in 2002 and requests refunds. In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and an ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denies Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirms FERC’s earlier rulings that Entergy’s original methodology for allocating energy costs to the opportunity sales was incorrect and, as a result, Entergy Arkansas must make payments to the other Utility operating companies to put them in the same position that they would have been in absent the incorrect allocation. The FERC clarified that interest should be included with the payments. The second order affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the rulings in the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision regarding the methodology that should be used to calculate the payments Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The FERC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that a full re-run of intra-system bills should be performed, but required that methodology be modified so that the sales have the same priority for purposes of energy allocation as joint account sales. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that adjustments to other System Agreement service schedules and excess bandwidth payments should not be taken into account when calculating the payments to be made by Entergy Arkansas. The FERC held that such adjustments and excess bandwidth payments should be taken into account, but ordered further proceedings before an ALJ to address whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology. In May 2016, Entergy Services filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order arguing that payments made by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced as a result of the timing of the LPSC’s approval of certain contracts. Entergy Services also filed a request for clarification and/or rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The APSC and the LPSC also filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order. In September 2017 the FERC issued an order denying the request for rehearing on the issue of whether any payments by Entergy Arkansas to the other Utility operating companies should be reduced due to the timing of the LPSC’s approval of Entergy Arkansas’s wholesale baseload contract with Entergy Louisiana. Pursuant to the procedural schedule established in the case, Entergy Services re-ran intra-system bills for the ten-year period 2000-2009 to quantify the effects of the FERC's ruling. In November 2016 the LPSC submitted testimony disputing certain aspects of the calculations, and Entergy Services submitted answering testimony in January 2017. In February 2017 the FERC staff filed testimony and Entergy Services filed responsive testimony. In March 2017 the LPSC filed rebuttal testimony. A hearing was held in May 2017. In July 2017 the ALJ issued an initial decision concluding that Entergy Arkansas should pay $86 million plus interest to the other Utility operating companies. In August 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, and FERC staff filed individual briefs on exceptions challenging various aspects of the initial decision. In September 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and FERC staff filed separate briefs opposing exceptions taken by various parties. The case is pending before the FERC. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing the initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order. The effect of the FERC’s decisions thus far in the case would be that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. Because further proceedings will still occur in the case, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case and its assessment of the April 2016 FERC orders, in the first quarter 2016, Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million, which includes interest, for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case, including its review of the July 2017 initial decision. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retail and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Entergy Arkansas, therefore, recorded a regulatory asset in the first quarter 2016 of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs. Complaint Against System Energy In January 2017 the APSC and MPSC filed a complaint with the FERC against System Energy. The complaint seeks a reduction in the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement pursuant to which System Energy sells its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. Entergy Arkansas also sells some of its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans under separate agreements. The current return on equity under the Unit Power Sales Agreement is 10.94%. The complaint alleges that the return on equity is unjust and unreasonable because current capital market and other considerations indicate that it is excessive. The complaint requests the FERC to institute proceedings to investigate the return on equity and establish a lower return on equity, and also requests that the FERC establish January 23, 2017 as a refund effective date. The complaint includes return on equity analysis that purports to establish that the range of reasonable return on equity for System Energy is between 8.37% and 8.67%. System Energy answered the complaint in February 2017 and disputes that a return on equity of 8.37% to 8.67% is just and reasonable. The LPSC and the City Council intervened in the proceeding expressing support for the complaint. System Energy is recording a provision against revenue for the potential outcome of this proceeding. In September 2017 the FERC established a refund effective date of January 23, 2017, consolidated the return on equity complaint proceeding with the proceeding related to System Energy’s Unit Power Sales Agreement amendments, discussed below, and directed the parties to engage in settlement proceedings before an ALJ. If the parties fail to come to an agreement during settlement proceedings, a prehearing conference will be held to establish a procedural schedule for hearing proceedings. Unit Power Sales Agreement In August 2017, System Energy submitted to the FERC proposed amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement pursuant to which System Energy sells its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. The filing proposes limited amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement to adopt (1) updated rates for use in calculating Grand Gulf plant depreciation and amortization expenses and (2) updated nuclear decommissioning cost annual revenue requirements, both of which are recovered through the Unit Power Sales Agreement rate formula. The proposed amendments would result in lower charges to the Utility operating companies that buy capacity and energy from System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The proposed changes are based on updated depreciation and nuclear decommissioning studies that take into account the renewal of Grand Gulf’s operating license for a term through November 1, 2044. System Energy requested that the FERC accept the amendments effective October 1, 2017. In September 2017 the FERC accepted System Energy’s proposed Unit Power Sales Agreement amendments, subject to further proceedings to consider the justness and reasonableness of the amendments. Because the amendments propose a rate decrease, the FERC also initiated an investigation under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act to determine if the rate decrease should be lower than proposed. The FERC accepted the proposed amendments effective October 1, 2017, subject to refund pending the outcome of the further settlement and/or hearing proceedings, and established a refund effective date of October 11, 2017 with respect to the rate decrease. The FERC also consolidated the Unit Power Sales Agreement amendment proceeding with the proceeding related to the complaint filed by the APSC and MPSC, discussed above, and directed the parties to engage in settlement proceedings before an ALJ. If the parties fail to come to an agreement during settlement proceedings, a prehearing conference will be held to establish a procedural schedule for hearing proceedings.
Entergy Mississippi [Member]
Public Utilities Disclosure [Text Block]	RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase in the rate from $0.01164 per kWh to $0.01547 per kWh. The APSC staff filed testimony in March 2017 recommending that the redetermined rate should be implemented with the first billing cycle of April 2017 under the normal operation of the tariff. Accordingly, the redetermined rate went into effect on March 31, 2017 pursuant to the tariff. In July 2017 the Arkansas Attorney General requested additional information to support certain of the costs included in Entergy Arkansas’s 2017 energy cost rate redetermination. Entergy Louisiana As discussed in the Form 10-K, in June 2016 the LPSC staff provided notice of audits of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings and purchased gas adjustment clause filings. The audit included a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2014 through 2015 and charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment clause for the period from 2012 through 2015. Discovery commenced in March 2017. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2010 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit included a review of the reasonableness of the charges flowed through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009. In December 2016 the LPSC opened a new docket in order to resolve an issue regarding the proper methodology for the recovery of nuclear dry fuel storage costs. In October 2017 the LPSC approved the continued recovery of the nuclear dry fuel storage costs through the fuel adjustment clause, resolving the open issue in the audit. Entergy Mississippi Mississippi Attorney General Complaint As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. The defendants have denied the allegations. In June 2017 the District Court issued a case management order setting a trial date in November 2018. Discovery is currently in progress. Entergy Texas As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2016, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2016. In December 2016, Entergy Texas entered into a stipulation and settlement agreement resulting in a $6 million disallowance not associated with any particular issue raised and a refund of the over-recovery balance of $21 million as of November 30, 2016, to most customers beginning April 2017 through June 2017. The fuel reconciliation settlement was approved by the PUCT in March 2017 and the refunds were made. In June 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application for a fuel refund of approximately $30.7 million for the months of December 2016 through April 2017. For most customers, the refunds flowed through bills for the months of July 2017 through September 2017. The fuel refund was approved by the PUCT in August 2017. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that information. Filings with the APSC 2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Arkansas is required to make a supplemental filing supporting the recovery of certain nuclear costs. In April 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion consented to by all parties requesting that it be permitted to submit its supplemental filing in conjunction with its 2017 formula rate plan filing, which was subsequently made in July 2017 and is discussed below. In May 2017 the APSC approved the joint motion and proposal to review Entergy Arkansas’s supplemental filing on a concurrent schedule with the 2017 formula rate plan filing. In doing so, however, the APSC noted that a determination of whether the supplemental information supporting certain nuclear expenditures will be considered in the hearing for the 2017 formula rate plan filing or a separate hearing will be made at a later time. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement resolving all issues in the docket and providing for recovery of the 2017 and 2018 nuclear costs. 2017 Formula Rate Plan Filing In July 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2017 formula rate plan filing showing Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the twelve months ended December 31, 2018 test period to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing projected a $129.7 million revenue requirement increase to achieve Entergy Arkansas’s target earned return on common equity of 9.75%. Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint and the projected annual revenue requirement increase exceeds the four percent, resulting in a proposed increase for the 2017 formula rate plan of $70.9 million. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC revised formula rate plan attachments that projected a $126.2 million revenue requirement increase based on acceptance of certain adjustments and recommendations made by the APSC staff and other intervenors. The revised formula rate plan filing included a proposed $71.1 million revenue requirement increase based on a revision to the four percent cap calculation. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement resolving all issues in the docket and providing for recovery of the 2017 and 2018 nuclear costs. The settlement agreement does not affect Entergy Arkansas’s proposed $71.1 million revenue requirement increase. If a final order is not issued by December 13, 2017, the proposed formula rate plan adjustment will become effective January 2, 2018, subject to refund. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed an application seeking a finding from the APSC that Entergy Arkansas’s deployment of advanced metering infrastructure is in the public interest. In June 2017 the APSC staff and Arkansas Attorney General filed direct testimony. The APSC staff generally supported Entergy Arkansas’s AMI deployment conditioned on various recommendations. The Arkansas Attorney General’s consultant primarily recommended denial of Entergy Arkansas’s application but alternatively suggested recommendations in the event the APSC approves Entergy Arkansas’s proposal. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in June 2017, substantially accepting the APSC staff’s recommendations. In August 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement. Also in August 2017 supplemental testimony was filed and a settlement hearing was held. In October 2017 the APSC issued an order finding that Entergy Arkansas’s AMI deployment is in the public interest and approving the settlement agreement subject to a minor modification. Entergy Arkansas expects to recover the undepreciated balance of its existing meters through a regulatory asset to be amortized over 15 years. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Electric 2014 Formula Rate Plan Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2015, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. In June 2017 the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed joint report of proceedings, which was accepted by the LPSC in June 2017, finalizing the results of this proceeding with no changes to rates already implemented. 2015 Formula Rate Plan Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2015 calendar year operations. In June 2017 the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed a joint report of proceedings, which was accepted by the LPSC in June 2017, finalizing the results of the May 2016 evaluation report, interim updates, and corresponding proceedings with no changes to rates already implemented. In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC a request to extend the MISO cost recovery mechanism rider provision of its formula rate plan. In March 2017 the LPSC staff submitted direct testimony generally supportive of a one-year extension of the MISO cost recovery mechanism and the intervenor in the proceeding did not oppose an extension for this period of time. In June 2017 an uncontested joint stipulation authorizing a one-year extension of the MISO cost recovery mechanism rider was filed and the LPSC approved the stipulation in July 2017. 2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing In May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2016 calendar year operations. The evaluation report reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.84%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following adjustments, however, are required under the formula rate plan. The 2016 formula rate plan evaluation report shows a decrease in formula rate plan revenue of approximately $16.9 million, comprised of a decrease in legacy Entergy Louisiana formula rate plan revenue of $3.5 million, a decrease in legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana formula rate plan revenue of $9.7 million, and a decrease in incremental formula rate plan revenue of $3.7 million. Additionally, the formula rate plan evaluation report calls for a decrease of $40.5 million in the MISO cost recovery revenue requirement from the current level of $46.8 million to $6.3 million. Rates reflecting these adjustments were implemented with the first billing cycle of September 2017, subject to refund, pending the review proceedings. Parties have intervened in the proceedings. No procedural schedule has been established. In September 2017 the LPSC issued its report indicating that no changes to Entergy Louisiana’s original formula rate plan evaluation report are required but reserved for several issues, including Entergy Louisiana’s September 2017 update to its formula rate plan evaluation report. Formula Rate Plan Extension Request In August 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed a request with the LPSC seeking to extend its formula rate plan for three years (2017-2019) with limited modifications of its terms. Those modifications include: a one-time resetting of base rates to the midpoint of the band at Entergy Louisiana’s authorized return on equity of 9.95% for the 2017 test year; narrowing of the formula rate plan bandwidth from a total of 160 basis points to 80 basis points; and a forward-looking mechanism that would allow Entergy Louisiana to recover certain transmission-related costs contemporaneously with when those projects begin delivering benefits to customers. Entergy Louisiana has requested that the LPSC consider its request on an expedited basis and render a decision by December 2017, in an effort to maintain Entergy Louisiana’s current cycle for implementing rate adjustments, i.e., September 2018, without the need for filing a full base rate case proceeding. Waterford 3 Replacement Steam Generator Project See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project prudence review proceeding. The refund to customers of approximately $71 million as a result of the settlement approved by the LPSC was made in January 2017. Following a review by the parties, an unopposed joint report of proceedings was filed by the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana in May 2017. In May 2017 the LPSC accepted the joint report of proceedings resolving the matter. Deactivation or Retirement Decisions for Entergy Louisiana Plants As a term of the LPSC-approved settlement authorizing the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station, Entergy Louisiana agreed to make a filing with the LPSC to review its decisions to deactivate Ninemile 3 and Willow Glen 2 and 4 and its decision to retire Little Gypsy 1. In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana made its compliance filing with the LPSC. Entergy Louisiana, LPSC staff, and intervenors participated in a technical conference in March 2016 where Entergy Louisiana presented information on its deactivation/retirement decisions for these four units in addition to information on the current deactivation decisions for the ten-year planning horizon. Parties have requested further proceedings on the prudence of the decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4. No party contests the prudence of the decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4 or suggests reactivation of these units; however, issues have been raised related to Entergy Louisiana’s decision to give up its transmission service rights in MISO for Willow Glen 2 and 4 rather than placing the units into suspended status for the three-year term permitted by MISO. An evidentiary hearing was held in August 2017 and post-hearing briefs were submitted in October 2017. A decision is expected in 2018. Retail Rates - Gas 2016 Rate Stabilization Plan Filing In January 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2016. The filing of the evaluation report for test year 2016 reflected an earned return on common equity of 6.37%. As part of the original filing, pursuant to the extraordinary cost provision of the rate stabilization plan, Entergy Louisiana sought to recover approximately $1.5 million in deferred operation and maintenance expenses incurred to restore service and repair damage resulting from flooding and widespread rainfall in southeast Louisiana that occurred in August 2016. Entergy Louisiana requested to recover the prudently incurred August 2016 storm restoration costs over ten years, outside of the rate stabilization plan sharing provisions. As a result, Entergy Louisiana’s filing sought an annual increase in revenue of $1.4 million. Following review of the filing, except for the proposed extraordinary cost recovery, the LPSC staff confirmed Entergy Louisiana’s filing was consistent with the principles and requirements of the rate stabilization plan. The extraordinary cost recovery request associated with the 2016 flood-related deferred operation and maintenance expenses incurred for gas operations was removed from the rate stabilization plan pending LPSC consideration in a separate docket. In April 2017 the LPSC approved a joint report of proceedings and Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised evaluation report reflecting a $1.2 million annual increase in revenue with rates implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2017. In connection with the joint report of proceedings accepted by the LPSC, in May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed an application to initiate a separate proceeding to recover the deferred operation and maintenance expenses of $1.4 million incurred to restore service and repair damage resulting from flooding and widespread rainfall in southeast Louisiana that occurred in August 2016 through the extraordinary cost provision of the gas rate stabilization plan. The LPSC staff submitted its direct testimony in the proceeding recommending recovery of $0.9 million. The procedural schedule includes a hearing in February 2018. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed an application seeking a finding from the LPSC that Entergy Louisiana’s deployment of advanced electric and gas metering infrastructure is in the public interest. The parties reached an uncontested stipulation permitting implementation of Entergy Louisiana’s proposed AMI system, with modifications to the proposed customer charge. The stipulation also confirmed that Entergy Louisiana shall continue to include in rate base the remaining book value of the existing electric meters and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. In July 2017 the LPSC approved the stipulation. Filings with the MPSC Formula Rate Plan In March 2017, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2017 test year filing and 2016 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2016 calendar year and projected earned return for the 2017 calendar year to be within the formula rate plan bandwidth, resulting in no change in rates. In June 2017, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a stipulation that confirmed that Entergy Mississippi’s earned returns for both the 2016 look-back filing and 2017 test year were within the respective formula rate plan bandwidths. In June 2017 the MPSC approved the stipulation, which resulted in no change in rates. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2016, Entergy Mississippi filed an application seeking a finding from the MPSC that Entergy Mississippi’s deployment of advanced metering infrastructure is in the public interest. In May 2017 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff and Entergy Mississippi entered into and filed a joint stipulation supporting Entergy Mississippi’s filing, and the MPSC issued an order approving the filing without any material changes, finding that Entergy Mississippi’s deployment of AMI is in the public interest and granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The MPSC order also confirmed that Entergy Mississippi shall continue to include in rate base the remaining book value of existing meters that will be retired as part of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Filings with the City Council Retail Rates As discussed in the Form 10-K, in February 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a proposed implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through March 2020. As part of the proposal, Entergy New Orleans requested that the City Council identify its desired level of funding for the program during this time period and approve a cost recovery mechanism. In April 2017 the City Council approved an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through December 2019. The City Council directed that the $11.8 million balance reported for Energy Smart funds be used to continue funding the program for Entergy New Orleans’s legacy customers and that the Energy Smart Algiers program continue to be funded through the Algiers fuel adjustment clause, until additional customer funding is required for the legacy customers. In September 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a supplemental plan and proposed several options for an interim cost recovery mechanism necessary to recover program costs during the period between when existing funds directed to Energy Smart programs are depleted (estimated to be June 2018) and when new rates from the anticipated 2018 combined rate case, which will include a cost recovery mechanism for Energy Smart funding, take effect (estimated to be August 2019). Entergy New Orleans requested that the City Council approve a cost recovery mechanism prior to June 2018. Internal Restructuring As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a restructuring that would result in the transfer of substantially all of the assets and operations of Entergy New Orleans to a new entity, which would ultimately be owned by an existing Entergy subsidiary holding company. In May 2017 the City Council adopted a resolution approving the proposed internal restructuring pursuant to an agreement in principle with the City Council advisors and certain intervenors. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans will credit retail customers $10 million in 2017, $1.4 million in the first quarter of the year after the transaction closes, and $117,500 each month in the second year after the transaction closes until such time as new base rates go into effect as a result of the anticipated 2018 base rate case. Entergy New Orleans began crediting retail customers in June 2017. In June 2017 the FERC approved the transaction and, pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans will provide additional credits to retail customers of $5 million in each of the years 2018, 2019, and 2020. Entergy New Orleans expects to complete the internal restructuring in fourth quarter 2017. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application seeking a finding from the City Council that Entergy New Orleans’s deployment of advanced electric and gas metering infrastructure is in the public interest. In April 2017, Entergy New Orleans received intervenor testimony that was generally supportive of AMI deployment. The City Council’s advisors filed testimony in May 2017 recommending the adoption of AMI subject to certain modifications, including the denial of Entergy New Orleans’s proposed customer charge as a cost recovery mechanism. In June 2017 the procedural schedule was suspended to allow for settlement discussions. A status conference was held in October 2017, and the parties set another status conference for February 2018 with the intent to continue to pursue settlement in the interim. Filings with the PUCT Retail Rates 2011 Rate Case See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Texas’s 2011 rate case. As discussed in the Form 10-K, several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced in the Form 10-K, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. In April 2016 the Third Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the District Court’s decision on all points. Entergy Texas and other parties petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. In September 2017 the Texas Supreme Court denied the petitions for review. Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the Texas Supreme Court’s denial of the petition for review. That motion is pending. Other Filings In September 2016, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider. The proposed amended TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $29.5 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers. This amount includes the approximately $10.5 million annually that Entergy Texas is currently authorized to collect through the TCRF rider. In December 2016, Entergy Texas and the PUCT reached a settlement agreeing to the amended TCRF annual revenue requirement of $29.5 million. The PUCT approved the settlement and issued a final order in March 2017. Entergy Texas implemented the amended TCRF rider beginning with bills covering usage on and after March 20, 2017. In June 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application to amend its distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider by increasing the total collection from $8.65 million to approximately $19 million. In July 2017, Entergy Texas, the PUCT, and the parties in the proceeding entered into an unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement resulting in an amended DCRF annual revenue requirement of $18.3 million, with the resulting rates effective for usage no later than October 1, 2017. In September 2017 the PUCT issued its final order approving the unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement. The amended DCRF rider rates became effective for usage on and after September 1, 2017. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing In April 2017 the Texas legislature enacted legislation that extends statutory support for AMI deployment to Entergy Texas and directs that if Entergy Texas elects to deploy AMI, it shall do so as rapidly as practicable. In July 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking an order from the PUCT approving Entergy Texas’s deployment of AMI. Entergy Texas proposed to replace existing meters with advanced meters that enable two-way data communication; design and build a secure and reliable network to support such communications; and implement support systems. AMI is intended to serve as the foundation of Entergy Texas’s modernized power grid. The filing identified a number of quantified and unquantified benefits, with Entergy Texas showing that its AMI deployment is expected to produce nominal net operational cost savings to customers of $33 million. Entergy Texas also sought to continue to include in rate base the remaining book value, approximately $41 million at December 31, 2016, of existing meters that will be retired as part of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Entergy Texas proposed a seven-year depreciable life for the new advanced meters, the three-year deployment of which is expected to begin in 2019. Entergy Texas also proposed a surcharge tariff to recover the reasonable and necessary costs it has and will incur under the deployment plan for the full deployment of advanced meters. Further, Entergy Texas is seeking approval of fees that would be charged to customers who choose to opt out of receiving service through an advanced meter and instead receive electric service with a non-standard meter. Subject to approval by the PUCT, deployment of the communications network is expected to begin in 2018. In October 2017, Entergy Texas and other parties entered into and filed an unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement. PUCT action on the stipulation and settlement agreement remains pending. Entergy Texas expects a decision from the PUCT by December 2017. Storm Cost Recovery Entergy Mississippi See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision. As of July 31, 2017, the balance in Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated storm damage provision was less than $10 million, therefore Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with September 2017 bills. System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceedings regarding the System Agreement, including the LPSC’s 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. In August 2017 the D.C. Circuit issued a decision addressing the LPSC’s appeal of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders. On the issue of the FERC’s implementation of the prospective remedy as of June 2005 and whether the bandwidth remedy should be extended for an additional 17 months in years 2004-2005, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the FERC’s implementation of the remedy and denied the LPSC’s appeal. On the issue of whether the operating companies should be required to issue refunds for the 20-month period from September 2001 to May 2003, the D.C. Circuit granted the FERC’s request for agency reconsideration and remanded that issue back to the FERC for further proceedings as requested by all parties to the appeal. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceedings As discussed in the Form 10-K, in June 2009 the LPSC filed a complaint requesting that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocated the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibited sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies. The LPSC’s complaint challenges sales made beginning in 2002 and requests refunds. In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and an ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denies Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirms FERC’s earlier rulings that Entergy’s original methodology for allocating energy costs to the opportunity sales was incorrect and, as a result, Entergy Arkansas must make payments to the other Utility operating companies to put them in the same position that they would have been in absent the incorrect allocation. The FERC clarified that interest should be included with the payments. The second order affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the rulings in the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision regarding the methodology that should be used to calculate the payments Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The FERC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that a full re-run of intra-system bills should be performed, but required that methodology be modified so that the sales have the same priority for purposes of energy allocation as joint account sales. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that adjustments to other System Agreement service schedules and excess bandwidth payments should not be taken into account when calculating the payments to be made by Entergy Arkansas. The FERC held that such adjustments and excess bandwidth payments should be taken into account, but ordered further proceedings before an ALJ to address whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology. In May 2016, Entergy Services filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order arguing that payments made by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced as a result of the timing of the LPSC’s approval of certain contracts. Entergy Services also filed a request for clarification and/or rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The APSC and the LPSC also filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order. In September 2017 the FERC issued an order denying the request for rehearing on the issue of whether any payments by Entergy Arkansas to the other Utility operating companies should be reduced due to the timing of the LPSC’s approval of Entergy Arkansas’s wholesale baseload contract with Entergy Louisiana. Pursuant to the procedural schedule established in the case, Entergy Services re-ran intra-system bills for the ten-year period 2000-2009 to quantify the effects of the FERC's ruling. In November 2016 the LPSC submitted testimony disputing certain aspects of the calculations, and Entergy Services submitted answering testimony in January 2017. In February 2017 the FERC staff filed testimony and Entergy Services filed responsive testimony. In March 2017 the LPSC filed rebuttal testimony. A hearing was held in May 2017. In July 2017 the ALJ issued an initial decision concluding that Entergy Arkansas should pay $86 million plus interest to the other Utility operating companies. In August 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, and FERC staff filed individual briefs on exceptions challenging various aspects of the initial decision. In September 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and FERC staff filed separate briefs opposing exceptions taken by various parties. The case is pending before the FERC. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing the initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order. The effect of the FERC’s decisions thus far in the case would be that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. Because further proceedings will still occur in the case, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case and its assessment of the April 2016 FERC orders, in the first quarter 2016, Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million, which includes interest, for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case, including its review of the July 2017 initial decision. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retail and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Entergy Arkansas, therefore, recorded a regulatory asset in the first quarter 2016 of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs. Complaint Against System Energy In January 2017 the APSC and MPSC filed a complaint with the FERC against System Energy. The complaint seeks a reduction in the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement pursuant to which System Energy sells its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. Entergy Arkansas also sells some of its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans under separate agreements. The current return on equity under the Unit Power Sales Agreement is 10.94%. The complaint alleges that the return on equity is unjust and unreasonable because current capital market and other considerations indicate that it is excessive. The complaint requests the FERC to institute proceedings to investigate the return on equity and establish a lower return on equity, and also requests that the FERC establish January 23, 2017 as a refund effective date. The complaint includes return on equity analysis that purports to establish that the range of reasonable return on equity for System Energy is between 8.37% and 8.67%. System Energy answered the complaint in February 2017 and disputes that a return on equity of 8.37% to 8.67% is just and reasonable. The LPSC and the City Council intervened in the proceeding expressing support for the complaint. System Energy is recording a provision against revenue for the potential outcome of this proceeding. In September 2017 the FERC established a refund effective date of January 23, 2017, consolidated the return on equity complaint proceeding with the proceeding related to System Energy’s Unit Power Sales Agreement amendments, discussed below, and directed the parties to engage in settlement proceedings before an ALJ. If the parties fail to come to an agreement during settlement proceedings, a prehearing conference will be held to establish a procedural schedule for hearing proceedings. Unit Power Sales Agreement In August 2017, System Energy submitted to the FERC proposed amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement pursuant to which System Energy sells its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. The filing proposes limited amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement to adopt (1) updated rates for use in calculating Grand Gulf plant depreciation and amortization expenses and (2) updated nuclear decommissioning cost annual revenue requirements, both of which are recovered through the Unit Power Sales Agreement rate formula. The proposed amendments would result in lower charges to the Utility operating companies that buy capacity and energy from System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The proposed changes are based on updated depreciation and nuclear decommissioning studies that take into account the renewal of Grand Gulf’s operating license for a term through November 1, 2044. System Energy requested that the FERC accept the amendments effective October 1, 2017. In September 2017 the FERC accepted System Energy’s proposed Unit Power Sales Agreement amendments, subject to further proceedings to consider the justness and reasonableness of the amendments. Because the amendments propose a rate decrease, the FERC also initiated an investigation under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act to determine if the rate decrease should be lower than proposed. The FERC accepted the proposed amendments effective October 1, 2017, subject to refund pending the outcome of the further settlement and/or hearing proceedings, and established a refund effective date of October 11, 2017 with respect to the rate decrease. The FERC also consolidated the Unit Power Sales Agreement amendment proceeding with the proceeding related to the complaint filed by the APSC and MPSC, discussed above, and directed the parties to engage in settlement proceedings before an ALJ. If the parties fail to come to an agreement during settlement proceedings, a prehearing conference will be held to establish a procedural schedule for hearing proceedings.
Entergy New Orleans [Member]
Public Utilities Disclosure [Text Block]	RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase in the rate from $0.01164 per kWh to $0.01547 per kWh. The APSC staff filed testimony in March 2017 recommending that the redetermined rate should be implemented with the first billing cycle of April 2017 under the normal operation of the tariff. Accordingly, the redetermined rate went into effect on March 31, 2017 pursuant to the tariff. In July 2017 the Arkansas Attorney General requested additional information to support certain of the costs included in Entergy Arkansas’s 2017 energy cost rate redetermination. Entergy Louisiana As discussed in the Form 10-K, in June 2016 the LPSC staff provided notice of audits of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings and purchased gas adjustment clause filings. The audit included a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2014 through 2015 and charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment clause for the period from 2012 through 2015. Discovery commenced in March 2017. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2010 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit included a review of the reasonableness of the charges flowed through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009. In December 2016 the LPSC opened a new docket in order to resolve an issue regarding the proper methodology for the recovery of nuclear dry fuel storage costs. In October 2017 the LPSC approved the continued recovery of the nuclear dry fuel storage costs through the fuel adjustment clause, resolving the open issue in the audit. Entergy Mississippi Mississippi Attorney General Complaint As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. The defendants have denied the allegations. In June 2017 the District Court issued a case management order setting a trial date in November 2018. Discovery is currently in progress. Entergy Texas As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2016, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2016. In December 2016, Entergy Texas entered into a stipulation and settlement agreement resulting in a $6 million disallowance not associated with any particular issue raised and a refund of the over-recovery balance of $21 million as of November 30, 2016, to most customers beginning April 2017 through June 2017. The fuel reconciliation settlement was approved by the PUCT in March 2017 and the refunds were made. In June 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application for a fuel refund of approximately $30.7 million for the months of December 2016 through April 2017. For most customers, the refunds flowed through bills for the months of July 2017 through September 2017. The fuel refund was approved by the PUCT in August 2017. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that information. Filings with the APSC 2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Arkansas is required to make a supplemental filing supporting the recovery of certain nuclear costs. In April 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion consented to by all parties requesting that it be permitted to submit its supplemental filing in conjunction with its 2017 formula rate plan filing, which was subsequently made in July 2017 and is discussed below. In May 2017 the APSC approved the joint motion and proposal to review Entergy Arkansas’s supplemental filing on a concurrent schedule with the 2017 formula rate plan filing. In doing so, however, the APSC noted that a determination of whether the supplemental information supporting certain nuclear expenditures will be considered in the hearing for the 2017 formula rate plan filing or a separate hearing will be made at a later time. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement resolving all issues in the docket and providing for recovery of the 2017 and 2018 nuclear costs. 2017 Formula Rate Plan Filing In July 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2017 formula rate plan filing showing Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the twelve months ended December 31, 2018 test period to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing projected a $129.7 million revenue requirement increase to achieve Entergy Arkansas’s target earned return on common equity of 9.75%. Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint and the projected annual revenue requirement increase exceeds the four percent, resulting in a proposed increase for the 2017 formula rate plan of $70.9 million. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC revised formula rate plan attachments that projected a $126.2 million revenue requirement increase based on acceptance of certain adjustments and recommendations made by the APSC staff and other intervenors. The revised formula rate plan filing included a proposed $71.1 million revenue requirement increase based on a revision to the four percent cap calculation. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement resolving all issues in the docket and providing for recovery of the 2017 and 2018 nuclear costs. The settlement agreement does not affect Entergy Arkansas’s proposed $71.1 million revenue requirement increase. If a final order is not issued by December 13, 2017, the proposed formula rate plan adjustment will become effective January 2, 2018, subject to refund. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed an application seeking a finding from the APSC that Entergy Arkansas’s deployment of advanced metering infrastructure is in the public interest. In June 2017 the APSC staff and Arkansas Attorney General filed direct testimony. The APSC staff generally supported Entergy Arkansas’s AMI deployment conditioned on various recommendations. The Arkansas Attorney General’s consultant primarily recommended denial of Entergy Arkansas’s application but alternatively suggested recommendations in the event the APSC approves Entergy Arkansas’s proposal. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in June 2017, substantially accepting the APSC staff’s recommendations. In August 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement. Also in August 2017 supplemental testimony was filed and a settlement hearing was held. In October 2017 the APSC issued an order finding that Entergy Arkansas’s AMI deployment is in the public interest and approving the settlement agreement subject to a minor modification. Entergy Arkansas expects to recover the undepreciated balance of its existing meters through a regulatory asset to be amortized over 15 years. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Electric 2014 Formula Rate Plan Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2015, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. In June 2017 the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed joint report of proceedings, which was accepted by the LPSC in June 2017, finalizing the results of this proceeding with no changes to rates already implemented. 2015 Formula Rate Plan Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2015 calendar year operations. In June 2017 the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed a joint report of proceedings, which was accepted by the LPSC in June 2017, finalizing the results of the May 2016 evaluation report, interim updates, and corresponding proceedings with no changes to rates already implemented. In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC a request to extend the MISO cost recovery mechanism rider provision of its formula rate plan. In March 2017 the LPSC staff submitted direct testimony generally supportive of a one-year extension of the MISO cost recovery mechanism and the intervenor in the proceeding did not oppose an extension for this period of time. In June 2017 an uncontested joint stipulation authorizing a one-year extension of the MISO cost recovery mechanism rider was filed and the LPSC approved the stipulation in July 2017. 2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing In May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2016 calendar year operations. The evaluation report reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.84%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following adjustments, however, are required under the formula rate plan. The 2016 formula rate plan evaluation report shows a decrease in formula rate plan revenue of approximately $16.9 million, comprised of a decrease in legacy Entergy Louisiana formula rate plan revenue of $3.5 million, a decrease in legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana formula rate plan revenue of $9.7 million, and a decrease in incremental formula rate plan revenue of $3.7 million. Additionally, the formula rate plan evaluation report calls for a decrease of $40.5 million in the MISO cost recovery revenue requirement from the current level of $46.8 million to $6.3 million. Rates reflecting these adjustments were implemented with the first billing cycle of September 2017, subject to refund, pending the review proceedings. Parties have intervened in the proceedings. No procedural schedule has been established. In September 2017 the LPSC issued its report indicating that no changes to Entergy Louisiana’s original formula rate plan evaluation report are required but reserved for several issues, including Entergy Louisiana’s September 2017 update to its formula rate plan evaluation report. Formula Rate Plan Extension Request In August 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed a request with the LPSC seeking to extend its formula rate plan for three years (2017-2019) with limited modifications of its terms. Those modifications include: a one-time resetting of base rates to the midpoint of the band at Entergy Louisiana’s authorized return on equity of 9.95% for the 2017 test year; narrowing of the formula rate plan bandwidth from a total of 160 basis points to 80 basis points; and a forward-looking mechanism that would allow Entergy Louisiana to recover certain transmission-related costs contemporaneously with when those projects begin delivering benefits to customers. Entergy Louisiana has requested that the LPSC consider its request on an expedited basis and render a decision by December 2017, in an effort to maintain Entergy Louisiana’s current cycle for implementing rate adjustments, i.e., September 2018, without the need for filing a full base rate case proceeding. Waterford 3 Replacement Steam Generator Project See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project prudence review proceeding. The refund to customers of approximately $71 million as a result of the settlement approved by the LPSC was made in January 2017. Following a review by the parties, an unopposed joint report of proceedings was filed by the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana in May 2017. In May 2017 the LPSC accepted the joint report of proceedings resolving the matter. Deactivation or Retirement Decisions for Entergy Louisiana Plants As a term of the LPSC-approved settlement authorizing the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station, Entergy Louisiana agreed to make a filing with the LPSC to review its decisions to deactivate Ninemile 3 and Willow Glen 2 and 4 and its decision to retire Little Gypsy 1. In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana made its compliance filing with the LPSC. Entergy Louisiana, LPSC staff, and intervenors participated in a technical conference in March 2016 where Entergy Louisiana presented information on its deactivation/retirement decisions for these four units in addition to information on the current deactivation decisions for the ten-year planning horizon. Parties have requested further proceedings on the prudence of the decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4. No party contests the prudence of the decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4 or suggests reactivation of these units; however, issues have been raised related to Entergy Louisiana’s decision to give up its transmission service rights in MISO for Willow Glen 2 and 4 rather than placing the units into suspended status for the three-year term permitted by MISO. An evidentiary hearing was held in August 2017 and post-hearing briefs were submitted in October 2017. A decision is expected in 2018. Retail Rates - Gas 2016 Rate Stabilization Plan Filing In January 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2016. The filing of the evaluation report for test year 2016 reflected an earned return on common equity of 6.37%. As part of the original filing, pursuant to the extraordinary cost provision of the rate stabilization plan, Entergy Louisiana sought to recover approximately $1.5 million in deferred operation and maintenance expenses incurred to restore service and repair damage resulting from flooding and widespread rainfall in southeast Louisiana that occurred in August 2016. Entergy Louisiana requested to recover the prudently incurred August 2016 storm restoration costs over ten years, outside of the rate stabilization plan sharing provisions. As a result, Entergy Louisiana’s filing sought an annual increase in revenue of $1.4 million. Following review of the filing, except for the proposed extraordinary cost recovery, the LPSC staff confirmed Entergy Louisiana’s filing was consistent with the principles and requirements of the rate stabilization plan. The extraordinary cost recovery request associated with the 2016 flood-related deferred operation and maintenance expenses incurred for gas operations was removed from the rate stabilization plan pending LPSC consideration in a separate docket. In April 2017 the LPSC approved a joint report of proceedings and Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised evaluation report reflecting a $1.2 million annual increase in revenue with rates implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2017. In connection with the joint report of proceedings accepted by the LPSC, in May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed an application to initiate a separate proceeding to recover the deferred operation and maintenance expenses of $1.4 million incurred to restore service and repair damage resulting from flooding and widespread rainfall in southeast Louisiana that occurred in August 2016 through the extraordinary cost provision of the gas rate stabilization plan. The LPSC staff submitted its direct testimony in the proceeding recommending recovery of $0.9 million. The procedural schedule includes a hearing in February 2018. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed an application seeking a finding from the LPSC that Entergy Louisiana’s deployment of advanced electric and gas metering infrastructure is in the public interest. The parties reached an uncontested stipulation permitting implementation of Entergy Louisiana’s proposed AMI system, with modifications to the proposed customer charge. The stipulation also confirmed that Entergy Louisiana shall continue to include in rate base the remaining book value of the existing electric meters and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. In July 2017 the LPSC approved the stipulation. Filings with the MPSC Formula Rate Plan In March 2017, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2017 test year filing and 2016 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2016 calendar year and projected earned return for the 2017 calendar year to be within the formula rate plan bandwidth, resulting in no change in rates. In June 2017, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a stipulation that confirmed that Entergy Mississippi’s earned returns for both the 2016 look-back filing and 2017 test year were within the respective formula rate plan bandwidths. In June 2017 the MPSC approved the stipulation, which resulted in no change in rates. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2016, Entergy Mississippi filed an application seeking a finding from the MPSC that Entergy Mississippi’s deployment of advanced metering infrastructure is in the public interest. In May 2017 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff and Entergy Mississippi entered into and filed a joint stipulation supporting Entergy Mississippi’s filing, and the MPSC issued an order approving the filing without any material changes, finding that Entergy Mississippi’s deployment of AMI is in the public interest and granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The MPSC order also confirmed that Entergy Mississippi shall continue to include in rate base the remaining book value of existing meters that will be retired as part of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Filings with the City Council Retail Rates As discussed in the Form 10-K, in February 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a proposed implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through March 2020. As part of the proposal, Entergy New Orleans requested that the City Council identify its desired level of funding for the program during this time period and approve a cost recovery mechanism. In April 2017 the City Council approved an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through December 2019. The City Council directed that the $11.8 million balance reported for Energy Smart funds be used to continue funding the program for Entergy New Orleans’s legacy customers and that the Energy Smart Algiers program continue to be funded through the Algiers fuel adjustment clause, until additional customer funding is required for the legacy customers. In September 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a supplemental plan and proposed several options for an interim cost recovery mechanism necessary to recover program costs during the period between when existing funds directed to Energy Smart programs are depleted (estimated to be June 2018) and when new rates from the anticipated 2018 combined rate case, which will include a cost recovery mechanism for Energy Smart funding, take effect (estimated to be August 2019). Entergy New Orleans requested that the City Council approve a cost recovery mechanism prior to June 2018. Internal Restructuring As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a restructuring that would result in the transfer of substantially all of the assets and operations of Entergy New Orleans to a new entity, which would ultimately be owned by an existing Entergy subsidiary holding company. In May 2017 the City Council adopted a resolution approving the proposed internal restructuring pursuant to an agreement in principle with the City Council advisors and certain intervenors. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans will credit retail customers $10 million in 2017, $1.4 million in the first quarter of the year after the transaction closes, and $117,500 each month in the second year after the transaction closes until such time as new base rates go into effect as a result of the anticipated 2018 base rate case. Entergy New Orleans began crediting retail customers in June 2017. In June 2017 the FERC approved the transaction and, pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans will provide additional credits to retail customers of $5 million in each of the years 2018, 2019, and 2020. Entergy New Orleans expects to complete the internal restructuring in fourth quarter 2017. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application seeking a finding from the City Council that Entergy New Orleans’s deployment of advanced electric and gas metering infrastructure is in the public interest. In April 2017, Entergy New Orleans received intervenor testimony that was generally supportive of AMI deployment. The City Council’s advisors filed testimony in May 2017 recommending the adoption of AMI subject to certain modifications, including the denial of Entergy New Orleans’s proposed customer charge as a cost recovery mechanism. In June 2017 the procedural schedule was suspended to allow for settlement discussions. A status conference was held in October 2017, and the parties set another status conference for February 2018 with the intent to continue to pursue settlement in the interim. Filings with the PUCT Retail Rates 2011 Rate Case See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Texas’s 2011 rate case. As discussed in the Form 10-K, several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced in the Form 10-K, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. In April 2016 the Third Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the District Court’s decision on all points. Entergy Texas and other parties petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. In September 2017 the Texas Supreme Court denied the petitions for review. Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the Texas Supreme Court’s denial of the petition for review. That motion is pending. Other Filings In September 2016, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider. The proposed amended TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $29.5 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers. This amount includes the approximately $10.5 million annually that Entergy Texas is currently authorized to collect through the TCRF rider. In December 2016, Entergy Texas and the PUCT reached a settlement agreeing to the amended TCRF annual revenue requirement of $29.5 million. The PUCT approved the settlement and issued a final order in March 2017. Entergy Texas implemented the amended TCRF rider beginning with bills covering usage on and after March 20, 2017. In June 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application to amend its distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider by increasing the total collection from $8.65 million to approximately $19 million. In July 2017, Entergy Texas, the PUCT, and the parties in the proceeding entered into an unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement resulting in an amended DCRF annual revenue requirement of $18.3 million, with the resulting rates effective for usage no later than October 1, 2017. In September 2017 the PUCT issued its final order approving the unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement. The amended DCRF rider rates became effective for usage on and after September 1, 2017. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing In April 2017 the Texas legislature enacted legislation that extends statutory support for AMI deployment to Entergy Texas and directs that if Entergy Texas elects to deploy AMI, it shall do so as rapidly as practicable. In July 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking an order from the PUCT approving Entergy Texas’s deployment of AMI. Entergy Texas proposed to replace existing meters with advanced meters that enable two-way data communication; design and build a secure and reliable network to support such communications; and implement support systems. AMI is intended to serve as the foundation of Entergy Texas’s modernized power grid. The filing identified a number of quantified and unquantified benefits, with Entergy Texas showing that its AMI deployment is expected to produce nominal net operational cost savings to customers of $33 million. Entergy Texas also sought to continue to include in rate base the remaining book value, approximately $41 million at December 31, 2016, of existing meters that will be retired as part of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Entergy Texas proposed a seven-year depreciable life for the new advanced meters, the three-year deployment of which is expected to begin in 2019. Entergy Texas also proposed a surcharge tariff to recover the reasonable and necessary costs it has and will incur under the deployment plan for the full deployment of advanced meters. Further, Entergy Texas is seeking approval of fees that would be charged to customers who choose to opt out of receiving service through an advanced meter and instead receive electric service with a non-standard meter. Subject to approval by the PUCT, deployment of the communications network is expected to begin in 2018. In October 2017, Entergy Texas and other parties entered into and filed an unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement. PUCT action on the stipulation and settlement agreement remains pending. Entergy Texas expects a decision from the PUCT by December 2017. Storm Cost Recovery Entergy Mississippi See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision. As of July 31, 2017, the balance in Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated storm damage provision was less than $10 million, therefore Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with September 2017 bills. System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceedings regarding the System Agreement, including the LPSC’s 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. In August 2017 the D.C. Circuit issued a decision addressing the LPSC’s appeal of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders. On the issue of the FERC’s implementation of the prospective remedy as of June 2005 and whether the bandwidth remedy should be extended for an additional 17 months in years 2004-2005, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the FERC’s implementation of the remedy and denied the LPSC’s appeal. On the issue of whether the operating companies should be required to issue refunds for the 20-month period from September 2001 to May 2003, the D.C. Circuit granted the FERC’s request for agency reconsideration and remanded that issue back to the FERC for further proceedings as requested by all parties to the appeal. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceedings As discussed in the Form 10-K, in June 2009 the LPSC filed a complaint requesting that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocated the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibited sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies. The LPSC’s complaint challenges sales made beginning in 2002 and requests refunds. In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and an ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denies Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirms FERC’s earlier rulings that Entergy’s original methodology for allocating energy costs to the opportunity sales was incorrect and, as a result, Entergy Arkansas must make payments to the other Utility operating companies to put them in the same position that they would have been in absent the incorrect allocation. The FERC clarified that interest should be included with the payments. The second order affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the rulings in the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision regarding the methodology that should be used to calculate the payments Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The FERC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that a full re-run of intra-system bills should be performed, but required that methodology be modified so that the sales have the same priority for purposes of energy allocation as joint account sales. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that adjustments to other System Agreement service schedules and excess bandwidth payments should not be taken into account when calculating the payments to be made by Entergy Arkansas. The FERC held that such adjustments and excess bandwidth payments should be taken into account, but ordered further proceedings before an ALJ to address whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology. In May 2016, Entergy Services filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order arguing that payments made by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced as a result of the timing of the LPSC’s approval of certain contracts. Entergy Services also filed a request for clarification and/or rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The APSC and the LPSC also filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order. In September 2017 the FERC issued an order denying the request for rehearing on the issue of whether any payments by Entergy Arkansas to the other Utility operating companies should be reduced due to the timing of the LPSC’s approval of Entergy Arkansas’s wholesale baseload contract with Entergy Louisiana. Pursuant to the procedural schedule established in the case, Entergy Services re-ran intra-system bills for the ten-year period 2000-2009 to quantify the effects of the FERC's ruling. In November 2016 the LPSC submitted testimony disputing certain aspects of the calculations, and Entergy Services submitted answering testimony in January 2017. In February 2017 the FERC staff filed testimony and Entergy Services filed responsive testimony. In March 2017 the LPSC filed rebuttal testimony. A hearing was held in May 2017. In July 2017 the ALJ issued an initial decision concluding that Entergy Arkansas should pay $86 million plus interest to the other Utility operating companies. In August 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, and FERC staff filed individual briefs on exceptions challenging various aspects of the initial decision. In September 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and FERC staff filed separate briefs opposing exceptions taken by various parties. The case is pending before the FERC. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing the initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order. The effect of the FERC’s decisions thus far in the case would be that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. Because further proceedings will still occur in the case, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case and its assessment of the April 2016 FERC orders, in the first quarter 2016, Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million, which includes interest, for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case, including its review of the July 2017 initial decision. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retail and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Entergy Arkansas, therefore, recorded a regulatory asset in the first quarter 2016 of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs. Complaint Against System Energy In January 2017 the APSC and MPSC filed a complaint with the FERC against System Energy. The complaint seeks a reduction in the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement pursuant to which System Energy sells its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. Entergy Arkansas also sells some of its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans under separate agreements. The current return on equity under the Unit Power Sales Agreement is 10.94%. The complaint alleges that the return on equity is unjust and unreasonable because current capital market and other considerations indicate that it is excessive. The complaint requests the FERC to institute proceedings to investigate the return on equity and establish a lower return on equity, and also requests that the FERC establish January 23, 2017 as a refund effective date. The complaint includes return on equity analysis that purports to establish that the range of reasonable return on equity for System Energy is between 8.37% and 8.67%. System Energy answered the complaint in February 2017 and disputes that a return on equity of 8.37% to 8.67% is just and reasonable. The LPSC and the City Council intervened in the proceeding expressing support for the complaint. System Energy is recording a provision against revenue for the potential outcome of this proceeding. In September 2017 the FERC established a refund effective date of January 23, 2017, consolidated the return on equity complaint proceeding with the proceeding related to System Energy’s Unit Power Sales Agreement amendments, discussed below, and directed the parties to engage in settlement proceedings before an ALJ. If the parties fail to come to an agreement during settlement proceedings, a prehearing conference will be held to establish a procedural schedule for hearing proceedings. Unit Power Sales Agreement In August 2017, System Energy submitted to the FERC proposed amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement pursuant to which System Energy sells its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. The filing proposes limited amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement to adopt (1) updated rates for use in calculating Grand Gulf plant depreciation and amortization expenses and (2) updated nuclear decommissioning cost annual revenue requirements, both of which are recovered through the Unit Power Sales Agreement rate formula. The proposed amendments would result in lower charges to the Utility operating companies that buy capacity and energy from System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The proposed changes are based on updated depreciation and nuclear decommissioning studies that take into account the renewal of Grand Gulf’s operating license for a term through November 1, 2044. System Energy requested that the FERC accept the amendments effective October 1, 2017. In September 2017 the FERC accepted System Energy’s proposed Unit Power Sales Agreement amendments, subject to further proceedings to consider the justness and reasonableness of the amendments. Because the amendments propose a rate decrease, the FERC also initiated an investigation under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act to determine if the rate decrease should be lower than proposed. The FERC accepted the proposed amendments effective October 1, 2017, subject to refund pending the outcome of the further settlement and/or hearing proceedings, and established a refund effective date of October 11, 2017 with respect to the rate decrease. The FERC also consolidated the Unit Power Sales Agreement amendment proceeding with the proceeding related to the complaint filed by the APSC and MPSC, discussed above, and directed the parties to engage in settlement proceedings before an ALJ. If the parties fail to come to an agreement during settlement proceedings, a prehearing conference will be held to establish a procedural schedule for hearing proceedings.
Entergy Texas [Member]
Public Utilities Disclosure [Text Block]	RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase in the rate from $0.01164 per kWh to $0.01547 per kWh. The APSC staff filed testimony in March 2017 recommending that the redetermined rate should be implemented with the first billing cycle of April 2017 under the normal operation of the tariff. Accordingly, the redetermined rate went into effect on March 31, 2017 pursuant to the tariff. In July 2017 the Arkansas Attorney General requested additional information to support certain of the costs included in Entergy Arkansas’s 2017 energy cost rate redetermination. Entergy Louisiana As discussed in the Form 10-K, in June 2016 the LPSC staff provided notice of audits of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings and purchased gas adjustment clause filings. The audit included a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2014 through 2015 and charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment clause for the period from 2012 through 2015. Discovery commenced in March 2017. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2010 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit included a review of the reasonableness of the charges flowed through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009. In December 2016 the LPSC opened a new docket in order to resolve an issue regarding the proper methodology for the recovery of nuclear dry fuel storage costs. In October 2017 the LPSC approved the continued recovery of the nuclear dry fuel storage costs through the fuel adjustment clause, resolving the open issue in the audit. Entergy Mississippi Mississippi Attorney General Complaint As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. The defendants have denied the allegations. In June 2017 the District Court issued a case management order setting a trial date in November 2018. Discovery is currently in progress. Entergy Texas As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2016, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2016. In December 2016, Entergy Texas entered into a stipulation and settlement agreement resulting in a $6 million disallowance not associated with any particular issue raised and a refund of the over-recovery balance of $21 million as of November 30, 2016, to most customers beginning April 2017 through June 2017. The fuel reconciliation settlement was approved by the PUCT in March 2017 and the refunds were made. In June 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application for a fuel refund of approximately $30.7 million for the months of December 2016 through April 2017. For most customers, the refunds flowed through bills for the months of July 2017 through September 2017. The fuel refund was approved by the PUCT in August 2017. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that information. Filings with the APSC 2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Arkansas is required to make a supplemental filing supporting the recovery of certain nuclear costs. In April 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion consented to by all parties requesting that it be permitted to submit its supplemental filing in conjunction with its 2017 formula rate plan filing, which was subsequently made in July 2017 and is discussed below. In May 2017 the APSC approved the joint motion and proposal to review Entergy Arkansas’s supplemental filing on a concurrent schedule with the 2017 formula rate plan filing. In doing so, however, the APSC noted that a determination of whether the supplemental information supporting certain nuclear expenditures will be considered in the hearing for the 2017 formula rate plan filing or a separate hearing will be made at a later time. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement resolving all issues in the docket and providing for recovery of the 2017 and 2018 nuclear costs. 2017 Formula Rate Plan Filing In July 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2017 formula rate plan filing showing Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the twelve months ended December 31, 2018 test period to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing projected a $129.7 million revenue requirement increase to achieve Entergy Arkansas’s target earned return on common equity of 9.75%. Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint and the projected annual revenue requirement increase exceeds the four percent, resulting in a proposed increase for the 2017 formula rate plan of $70.9 million. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC revised formula rate plan attachments that projected a $126.2 million revenue requirement increase based on acceptance of certain adjustments and recommendations made by the APSC staff and other intervenors. The revised formula rate plan filing included a proposed $71.1 million revenue requirement increase based on a revision to the four percent cap calculation. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement resolving all issues in the docket and providing for recovery of the 2017 and 2018 nuclear costs. The settlement agreement does not affect Entergy Arkansas’s proposed $71.1 million revenue requirement increase. If a final order is not issued by December 13, 2017, the proposed formula rate plan adjustment will become effective January 2, 2018, subject to refund. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed an application seeking a finding from the APSC that Entergy Arkansas’s deployment of advanced metering infrastructure is in the public interest. In June 2017 the APSC staff and Arkansas Attorney General filed direct testimony. The APSC staff generally supported Entergy Arkansas’s AMI deployment conditioned on various recommendations. The Arkansas Attorney General’s consultant primarily recommended denial of Entergy Arkansas’s application but alternatively suggested recommendations in the event the APSC approves Entergy Arkansas’s proposal. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in June 2017, substantially accepting the APSC staff’s recommendations. In August 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement. Also in August 2017 supplemental testimony was filed and a settlement hearing was held. In October 2017 the APSC issued an order finding that Entergy Arkansas’s AMI deployment is in the public interest and approving the settlement agreement subject to a minor modification. Entergy Arkansas expects to recover the undepreciated balance of its existing meters through a regulatory asset to be amortized over 15 years. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Electric 2014 Formula Rate Plan Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2015, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. In June 2017 the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed joint report of proceedings, which was accepted by the LPSC in June 2017, finalizing the results of this proceeding with no changes to rates already implemented. 2015 Formula Rate Plan Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2015 calendar year operations. In June 2017 the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed a joint report of proceedings, which was accepted by the LPSC in June 2017, finalizing the results of the May 2016 evaluation report, interim updates, and corresponding proceedings with no changes to rates already implemented. In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC a request to extend the MISO cost recovery mechanism rider provision of its formula rate plan. In March 2017 the LPSC staff submitted direct testimony generally supportive of a one-year extension of the MISO cost recovery mechanism and the intervenor in the proceeding did not oppose an extension for this period of time. In June 2017 an uncontested joint stipulation authorizing a one-year extension of the MISO cost recovery mechanism rider was filed and the LPSC approved the stipulation in July 2017. 2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing In May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2016 calendar year operations. The evaluation report reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.84%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following adjustments, however, are required under the formula rate plan. The 2016 formula rate plan evaluation report shows a decrease in formula rate plan revenue of approximately $16.9 million, comprised of a decrease in legacy Entergy Louisiana formula rate plan revenue of $3.5 million, a decrease in legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana formula rate plan revenue of $9.7 million, and a decrease in incremental formula rate plan revenue of $3.7 million. Additionally, the formula rate plan evaluation report calls for a decrease of $40.5 million in the MISO cost recovery revenue requirement from the current level of $46.8 million to $6.3 million. Rates reflecting these adjustments were implemented with the first billing cycle of September 2017, subject to refund, pending the review proceedings. Parties have intervened in the proceedings. No procedural schedule has been established. In September 2017 the LPSC issued its report indicating that no changes to Entergy Louisiana’s original formula rate plan evaluation report are required but reserved for several issues, including Entergy Louisiana’s September 2017 update to its formula rate plan evaluation report. Formula Rate Plan Extension Request In August 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed a request with the LPSC seeking to extend its formula rate plan for three years (2017-2019) with limited modifications of its terms. Those modifications include: a one-time resetting of base rates to the midpoint of the band at Entergy Louisiana’s authorized return on equity of 9.95% for the 2017 test year; narrowing of the formula rate plan bandwidth from a total of 160 basis points to 80 basis points; and a forward-looking mechanism that would allow Entergy Louisiana to recover certain transmission-related costs contemporaneously with when those projects begin delivering benefits to customers. Entergy Louisiana has requested that the LPSC consider its request on an expedited basis and render a decision by December 2017, in an effort to maintain Entergy Louisiana’s current cycle for implementing rate adjustments, i.e., September 2018, without the need for filing a full base rate case proceeding. Waterford 3 Replacement Steam Generator Project See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project prudence review proceeding. The refund to customers of approximately $71 million as a result of the settlement approved by the LPSC was made in January 2017. Following a review by the parties, an unopposed joint report of proceedings was filed by the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana in May 2017. In May 2017 the LPSC accepted the joint report of proceedings resolving the matter. Deactivation or Retirement Decisions for Entergy Louisiana Plants As a term of the LPSC-approved settlement authorizing the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station, Entergy Louisiana agreed to make a filing with the LPSC to review its decisions to deactivate Ninemile 3 and Willow Glen 2 and 4 and its decision to retire Little Gypsy 1. In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana made its compliance filing with the LPSC. Entergy Louisiana, LPSC staff, and intervenors participated in a technical conference in March 2016 where Entergy Louisiana presented information on its deactivation/retirement decisions for these four units in addition to information on the current deactivation decisions for the ten-year planning horizon. Parties have requested further proceedings on the prudence of the decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4. No party contests the prudence of the decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4 or suggests reactivation of these units; however, issues have been raised related to Entergy Louisiana’s decision to give up its transmission service rights in MISO for Willow Glen 2 and 4 rather than placing the units into suspended status for the three-year term permitted by MISO. An evidentiary hearing was held in August 2017 and post-hearing briefs were submitted in October 2017. A decision is expected in 2018. Retail Rates - Gas 2016 Rate Stabilization Plan Filing In January 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2016. The filing of the evaluation report for test year 2016 reflected an earned return on common equity of 6.37%. As part of the original filing, pursuant to the extraordinary cost provision of the rate stabilization plan, Entergy Louisiana sought to recover approximately $1.5 million in deferred operation and maintenance expenses incurred to restore service and repair damage resulting from flooding and widespread rainfall in southeast Louisiana that occurred in August 2016. Entergy Louisiana requested to recover the prudently incurred August 2016 storm restoration costs over ten years, outside of the rate stabilization plan sharing provisions. As a result, Entergy Louisiana’s filing sought an annual increase in revenue of $1.4 million. Following review of the filing, except for the proposed extraordinary cost recovery, the LPSC staff confirmed Entergy Louisiana’s filing was consistent with the principles and requirements of the rate stabilization plan. The extraordinary cost recovery request associated with the 2016 flood-related deferred operation and maintenance expenses incurred for gas operations was removed from the rate stabilization plan pending LPSC consideration in a separate docket. In April 2017 the LPSC approved a joint report of proceedings and Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised evaluation report reflecting a $1.2 million annual increase in revenue with rates implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2017. In connection with the joint report of proceedings accepted by the LPSC, in May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed an application to initiate a separate proceeding to recover the deferred operation and maintenance expenses of $1.4 million incurred to restore service and repair damage resulting from flooding and widespread rainfall in southeast Louisiana that occurred in August 2016 through the extraordinary cost provision of the gas rate stabilization plan. The LPSC staff submitted its direct testimony in the proceeding recommending recovery of $0.9 million. The procedural schedule includes a hearing in February 2018. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed an application seeking a finding from the LPSC that Entergy Louisiana’s deployment of advanced electric and gas metering infrastructure is in the public interest. The parties reached an uncontested stipulation permitting implementation of Entergy Louisiana’s proposed AMI system, with modifications to the proposed customer charge. The stipulation also confirmed that Entergy Louisiana shall continue to include in rate base the remaining book value of the existing electric meters and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. In July 2017 the LPSC approved the stipulation. Filings with the MPSC Formula Rate Plan In March 2017, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2017 test year filing and 2016 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2016 calendar year and projected earned return for the 2017 calendar year to be within the formula rate plan bandwidth, resulting in no change in rates. In June 2017, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a stipulation that confirmed that Entergy Mississippi’s earned returns for both the 2016 look-back filing and 2017 test year were within the respective formula rate plan bandwidths. In June 2017 the MPSC approved the stipulation, which resulted in no change in rates. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2016, Entergy Mississippi filed an application seeking a finding from the MPSC that Entergy Mississippi’s deployment of advanced metering infrastructure is in the public interest. In May 2017 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff and Entergy Mississippi entered into and filed a joint stipulation supporting Entergy Mississippi’s filing, and the MPSC issued an order approving the filing without any material changes, finding that Entergy Mississippi’s deployment of AMI is in the public interest and granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The MPSC order also confirmed that Entergy Mississippi shall continue to include in rate base the remaining book value of existing meters that will be retired as part of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Filings with the City Council Retail Rates As discussed in the Form 10-K, in February 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a proposed implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through March 2020. As part of the proposal, Entergy New Orleans requested that the City Council identify its desired level of funding for the program during this time period and approve a cost recovery mechanism. In April 2017 the City Council approved an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through December 2019. The City Council directed that the $11.8 million balance reported for Energy Smart funds be used to continue funding the program for Entergy New Orleans’s legacy customers and that the Energy Smart Algiers program continue to be funded through the Algiers fuel adjustment clause, until additional customer funding is required for the legacy customers. In September 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a supplemental plan and proposed several options for an interim cost recovery mechanism necessary to recover program costs during the period between when existing funds directed to Energy Smart programs are depleted (estimated to be June 2018) and when new rates from the anticipated 2018 combined rate case, which will include a cost recovery mechanism for Energy Smart funding, take effect (estimated to be August 2019). Entergy New Orleans requested that the City Council approve a cost recovery mechanism prior to June 2018. Internal Restructuring As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a restructuring that would result in the transfer of substantially all of the assets and operations of Entergy New Orleans to a new entity, which would ultimately be owned by an existing Entergy subsidiary holding company. In May 2017 the City Council adopted a resolution approving the proposed internal restructuring pursuant to an agreement in principle with the City Council advisors and certain intervenors. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans will credit retail customers $10 million in 2017, $1.4 million in the first quarter of the year after the transaction closes, and $117,500 each month in the second year after the transaction closes until such time as new base rates go into effect as a result of the anticipated 2018 base rate case. Entergy New Orleans began crediting retail customers in June 2017. In June 2017 the FERC approved the transaction and, pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans will provide additional credits to retail customers of $5 million in each of the years 2018, 2019, and 2020. Entergy New Orleans expects to complete the internal restructuring in fourth quarter 2017. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application seeking a finding from the City Council that Entergy New Orleans’s deployment of advanced electric and gas metering infrastructure is in the public interest. In April 2017, Entergy New Orleans received intervenor testimony that was generally supportive of AMI deployment. The City Council’s advisors filed testimony in May 2017 recommending the adoption of AMI subject to certain modifications, including the denial of Entergy New Orleans’s proposed customer charge as a cost recovery mechanism. In June 2017 the procedural schedule was suspended to allow for settlement discussions. A status conference was held in October 2017, and the parties set another status conference for February 2018 with the intent to continue to pursue settlement in the interim. Filings with the PUCT Retail Rates 2011 Rate Case See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Texas’s 2011 rate case. As discussed in the Form 10-K, several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced in the Form 10-K, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. In April 2016 the Third Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the District Court’s decision on all points. Entergy Texas and other parties petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. In September 2017 the Texas Supreme Court denied the petitions for review. Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the Texas Supreme Court’s denial of the petition for review. That motion is pending. Other Filings In September 2016, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider. The proposed amended TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $29.5 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers. This amount includes the approximately $10.5 million annually that Entergy Texas is currently authorized to collect through the TCRF rider. In December 2016, Entergy Texas and the PUCT reached a settlement agreeing to the amended TCRF annual revenue requirement of $29.5 million. The PUCT approved the settlement and issued a final order in March 2017. Entergy Texas implemented the amended TCRF rider beginning with bills covering usage on and after March 20, 2017. In June 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application to amend its distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider by increasing the total collection from $8.65 million to approximately $19 million. In July 2017, Entergy Texas, the PUCT, and the parties in the proceeding entered into an unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement resulting in an amended DCRF annual revenue requirement of $18.3 million, with the resulting rates effective for usage no later than October 1, 2017. In September 2017 the PUCT issued its final order approving the unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement. The amended DCRF rider rates became effective for usage on and after September 1, 2017. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing In April 2017 the Texas legislature enacted legislation that extends statutory support for AMI deployment to Entergy Texas and directs that if Entergy Texas elects to deploy AMI, it shall do so as rapidly as practicable. In July 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking an order from the PUCT approving Entergy Texas’s deployment of AMI. Entergy Texas proposed to replace existing meters with advanced meters that enable two-way data communication; design and build a secure and reliable network to support such communications; and implement support systems. AMI is intended to serve as the foundation of Entergy Texas’s modernized power grid. The filing identified a number of quantified and unquantified benefits, with Entergy Texas showing that its AMI deployment is expected to produce nominal net operational cost savings to customers of $33 million. Entergy Texas also sought to continue to include in rate base the remaining book value, approximately $41 million at December 31, 2016, of existing meters that will be retired as part of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Entergy Texas proposed a seven-year depreciable life for the new advanced meters, the three-year deployment of which is expected to begin in 2019. Entergy Texas also proposed a surcharge tariff to recover the reasonable and necessary costs it has and will incur under the deployment plan for the full deployment of advanced meters. Further, Entergy Texas is seeking approval of fees that would be charged to customers who choose to opt out of receiving service through an advanced meter and instead receive electric service with a non-standard meter. Subject to approval by the PUCT, deployment of the communications network is expected to begin in 2018. In October 2017, Entergy Texas and other parties entered into and filed an unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement. PUCT action on the stipulation and settlement agreement remains pending. Entergy Texas expects a decision from the PUCT by December 2017. Storm Cost Recovery Entergy Mississippi See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision. As of July 31, 2017, the balance in Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated storm damage provision was less than $10 million, therefore Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with September 2017 bills. System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceedings regarding the System Agreement, including the LPSC’s 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. In August 2017 the D.C. Circuit issued a decision addressing the LPSC’s appeal of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders. On the issue of the FERC’s implementation of the prospective remedy as of June 2005 and whether the bandwidth remedy should be extended for an additional 17 months in years 2004-2005, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the FERC’s implementation of the remedy and denied the LPSC’s appeal. On the issue of whether the operating companies should be required to issue refunds for the 20-month period from September 2001 to May 2003, the D.C. Circuit granted the FERC’s request for agency reconsideration and remanded that issue back to the FERC for further proceedings as requested by all parties to the appeal. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceedings As discussed in the Form 10-K, in June 2009 the LPSC filed a complaint requesting that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocated the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibited sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies. The LPSC’s complaint challenges sales made beginning in 2002 and requests refunds. In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and an ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denies Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirms FERC’s earlier rulings that Entergy’s original methodology for allocating energy costs to the opportunity sales was incorrect and, as a result, Entergy Arkansas must make payments to the other Utility operating companies to put them in the same position that they would have been in absent the incorrect allocation. The FERC clarified that interest should be included with the payments. The second order affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the rulings in the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision regarding the methodology that should be used to calculate the payments Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The FERC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that a full re-run of intra-system bills should be performed, but required that methodology be modified so that the sales have the same priority for purposes of energy allocation as joint account sales. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that adjustments to other System Agreement service schedules and excess bandwidth payments should not be taken into account when calculating the payments to be made by Entergy Arkansas. The FERC held that such adjustments and excess bandwidth payments should be taken into account, but ordered further proceedings before an ALJ to address whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology. In May 2016, Entergy Services filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order arguing that payments made by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced as a result of the timing of the LPSC’s approval of certain contracts. Entergy Services also filed a request for clarification and/or rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The APSC and the LPSC also filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order. In September 2017 the FERC issued an order denying the request for rehearing on the issue of whether any payments by Entergy Arkansas to the other Utility operating companies should be reduced due to the timing of the LPSC’s approval of Entergy Arkansas’s wholesale baseload contract with Entergy Louisiana. Pursuant to the procedural schedule established in the case, Entergy Services re-ran intra-system bills for the ten-year period 2000-2009 to quantify the effects of the FERC's ruling. In November 2016 the LPSC submitted testimony disputing certain aspects of the calculations, and Entergy Services submitted answering testimony in January 2017. In February 2017 the FERC staff filed testimony and Entergy Services filed responsive testimony. In March 2017 the LPSC filed rebuttal testimony. A hearing was held in May 2017. In July 2017 the ALJ issued an initial decision concluding that Entergy Arkansas should pay $86 million plus interest to the other Utility operating companies. In August 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, and FERC staff filed individual briefs on exceptions challenging various aspects of the initial decision. In September 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and FERC staff filed separate briefs opposing exceptions taken by various parties. The case is pending before the FERC. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing the initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order. The effect of the FERC’s decisions thus far in the case would be that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. Because further proceedings will still occur in the case, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case and its assessment of the April 2016 FERC orders, in the first quarter 2016, Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million, which includes interest, for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case, including its review of the July 2017 initial decision. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retail and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Entergy Arkansas, therefore, recorded a regulatory asset in the first quarter 2016 of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs. Complaint Against System Energy In January 2017 the APSC and MPSC filed a complaint with the FERC against System Energy. The complaint seeks a reduction in the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement pursuant to which System Energy sells its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. Entergy Arkansas also sells some of its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans under separate agreements. The current return on equity under the Unit Power Sales Agreement is 10.94%. The complaint alleges that the return on equity is unjust and unreasonable because current capital market and other considerations indicate that it is excessive. The complaint requests the FERC to institute proceedings to investigate the return on equity and establish a lower return on equity, and also requests that the FERC establish January 23, 2017 as a refund effective date. The complaint includes return on equity analysis that purports to establish that the range of reasonable return on equity for System Energy is between 8.37% and 8.67%. System Energy answered the complaint in February 2017 and disputes that a return on equity of 8.37% to 8.67% is just and reasonable. The LPSC and the City Council intervened in the proceeding expressing support for the complaint. System Energy is recording a provision against revenue for the potential outcome of this proceeding. In September 2017 the FERC established a refund effective date of January 23, 2017, consolidated the return on equity complaint proceeding with the proceeding related to System Energy’s Unit Power Sales Agreement amendments, discussed below, and directed the parties to engage in settlement proceedings before an ALJ. If the parties fail to come to an agreement during settlement proceedings, a prehearing conference will be held to establish a procedural schedule for hearing proceedings. Unit Power Sales Agreement In August 2017, System Energy submitted to the FERC proposed amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement pursuant to which System Energy sells its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. The filing proposes limited amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement to adopt (1) updated rates for use in calculating Grand Gulf plant depreciation and amortization expenses and (2) updated nuclear decommissioning cost annual revenue requirements, both of which are recovered through the Unit Power Sales Agreement rate formula. The proposed amendments would result in lower charges to the Utility operating companies that buy capacity and energy from System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The proposed changes are based on updated depreciation and nuclear decommissioning studies that take into account the renewal of Grand Gulf’s operating license for a term through November 1, 2044. System Energy requested that the FERC accept the amendments effective October 1, 2017. In September 2017 the FERC accepted System Energy’s proposed Unit Power Sales Agreement amendments, subject to further proceedings to consider the justness and reasonableness of the amendments. Because the amendments propose a rate decrease, the FERC also initiated an investigation under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act to determine if the rate decrease should be lower than proposed. The FERC accepted the proposed amendments effective October 1, 2017, subject to refund pending the outcome of the further settlement and/or hearing proceedings, and established a refund effective date of October 11, 2017 with respect to the rate decrease. The FERC also consolidated the Unit Power Sales Agreement amendment proceeding with the proceeding related to the complaint filed by the APSC and MPSC, discussed above, and directed the parties to engage in settlement proceedings before an ALJ. If the parties fail to come to an agreement during settlement proceedings, a prehearing conference will be held to establish a procedural schedule for hearing proceedings.
System Energy [Member]
Public Utilities Disclosure [Text Block]	RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase in the rate from $0.01164 per kWh to $0.01547 per kWh. The APSC staff filed testimony in March 2017 recommending that the redetermined rate should be implemented with the first billing cycle of April 2017 under the normal operation of the tariff. Accordingly, the redetermined rate went into effect on March 31, 2017 pursuant to the tariff. In July 2017 the Arkansas Attorney General requested additional information to support certain of the costs included in Entergy Arkansas’s 2017 energy cost rate redetermination. Entergy Louisiana As discussed in the Form 10-K, in June 2016 the LPSC staff provided notice of audits of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings and purchased gas adjustment clause filings. The audit included a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2014 through 2015 and charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment clause for the period from 2012 through 2015. Discovery commenced in March 2017. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2010 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit included a review of the reasonableness of the charges flowed through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009. In December 2016 the LPSC opened a new docket in order to resolve an issue regarding the proper methodology for the recovery of nuclear dry fuel storage costs. In October 2017 the LPSC approved the continued recovery of the nuclear dry fuel storage costs through the fuel adjustment clause, resolving the open issue in the audit. Entergy Mississippi Mississippi Attorney General Complaint As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand. The defendants have denied the allegations. In June 2017 the District Court issued a case management order setting a trial date in November 2018. Discovery is currently in progress. Entergy Texas As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2016, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2016. In December 2016, Entergy Texas entered into a stipulation and settlement agreement resulting in a $6 million disallowance not associated with any particular issue raised and a refund of the over-recovery balance of $21 million as of November 30, 2016, to most customers beginning April 2017 through June 2017. The fuel reconciliation settlement was approved by the PUCT in March 2017 and the refunds were made. In June 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application for a fuel refund of approximately $30.7 million for the months of December 2016 through April 2017. For most customers, the refunds flowed through bills for the months of July 2017 through September 2017. The fuel refund was approved by the PUCT in August 2017. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that information. Filings with the APSC 2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Arkansas is required to make a supplemental filing supporting the recovery of certain nuclear costs. In April 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion consented to by all parties requesting that it be permitted to submit its supplemental filing in conjunction with its 2017 formula rate plan filing, which was subsequently made in July 2017 and is discussed below. In May 2017 the APSC approved the joint motion and proposal to review Entergy Arkansas’s supplemental filing on a concurrent schedule with the 2017 formula rate plan filing. In doing so, however, the APSC noted that a determination of whether the supplemental information supporting certain nuclear expenditures will be considered in the hearing for the 2017 formula rate plan filing or a separate hearing will be made at a later time. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement resolving all issues in the docket and providing for recovery of the 2017 and 2018 nuclear costs. 2017 Formula Rate Plan Filing In July 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2017 formula rate plan filing showing Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the twelve months ended December 31, 2018 test period to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing projected a $129.7 million revenue requirement increase to achieve Entergy Arkansas’s target earned return on common equity of 9.75%. Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint and the projected annual revenue requirement increase exceeds the four percent, resulting in a proposed increase for the 2017 formula rate plan of $70.9 million. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC revised formula rate plan attachments that projected a $126.2 million revenue requirement increase based on acceptance of certain adjustments and recommendations made by the APSC staff and other intervenors. The revised formula rate plan filing included a proposed $71.1 million revenue requirement increase based on a revision to the four percent cap calculation. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement resolving all issues in the docket and providing for recovery of the 2017 and 2018 nuclear costs. The settlement agreement does not affect Entergy Arkansas’s proposed $71.1 million revenue requirement increase. If a final order is not issued by December 13, 2017, the proposed formula rate plan adjustment will become effective January 2, 2018, subject to refund. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed an application seeking a finding from the APSC that Entergy Arkansas’s deployment of advanced metering infrastructure is in the public interest. In June 2017 the APSC staff and Arkansas Attorney General filed direct testimony. The APSC staff generally supported Entergy Arkansas’s AMI deployment conditioned on various recommendations. The Arkansas Attorney General’s consultant primarily recommended denial of Entergy Arkansas’s application but alternatively suggested recommendations in the event the APSC approves Entergy Arkansas’s proposal. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in June 2017, substantially accepting the APSC staff’s recommendations. In August 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement. Also in August 2017 supplemental testimony was filed and a settlement hearing was held. In October 2017 the APSC issued an order finding that Entergy Arkansas’s AMI deployment is in the public interest and approving the settlement agreement subject to a minor modification. Entergy Arkansas expects to recover the undepreciated balance of its existing meters through a regulatory asset to be amortized over 15 years. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Electric 2014 Formula Rate Plan Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2015, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. In June 2017 the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed joint report of proceedings, which was accepted by the LPSC in June 2017, finalizing the results of this proceeding with no changes to rates already implemented. 2015 Formula Rate Plan Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2015 calendar year operations. In June 2017 the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed a joint report of proceedings, which was accepted by the LPSC in June 2017, finalizing the results of the May 2016 evaluation report, interim updates, and corresponding proceedings with no changes to rates already implemented. In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC a request to extend the MISO cost recovery mechanism rider provision of its formula rate plan. In March 2017 the LPSC staff submitted direct testimony generally supportive of a one-year extension of the MISO cost recovery mechanism and the intervenor in the proceeding did not oppose an extension for this period of time. In June 2017 an uncontested joint stipulation authorizing a one-year extension of the MISO cost recovery mechanism rider was filed and the LPSC approved the stipulation in July 2017. 2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing In May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2016 calendar year operations. The evaluation report reflects an earned return on common equity of 9.84%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue is required. The following adjustments, however, are required under the formula rate plan. The 2016 formula rate plan evaluation report shows a decrease in formula rate plan revenue of approximately $16.9 million, comprised of a decrease in legacy Entergy Louisiana formula rate plan revenue of $3.5 million, a decrease in legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana formula rate plan revenue of $9.7 million, and a decrease in incremental formula rate plan revenue of $3.7 million. Additionally, the formula rate plan evaluation report calls for a decrease of $40.5 million in the MISO cost recovery revenue requirement from the current level of $46.8 million to $6.3 million. Rates reflecting these adjustments were implemented with the first billing cycle of September 2017, subject to refund, pending the review proceedings. Parties have intervened in the proceedings. No procedural schedule has been established. In September 2017 the LPSC issued its report indicating that no changes to Entergy Louisiana’s original formula rate plan evaluation report are required but reserved for several issues, including Entergy Louisiana’s September 2017 update to its formula rate plan evaluation report. Formula Rate Plan Extension Request In August 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed a request with the LPSC seeking to extend its formula rate plan for three years (2017-2019) with limited modifications of its terms. Those modifications include: a one-time resetting of base rates to the midpoint of the band at Entergy Louisiana’s authorized return on equity of 9.95% for the 2017 test year; narrowing of the formula rate plan bandwidth from a total of 160 basis points to 80 basis points; and a forward-looking mechanism that would allow Entergy Louisiana to recover certain transmission-related costs contemporaneously with when those projects begin delivering benefits to customers. Entergy Louisiana has requested that the LPSC consider its request on an expedited basis and render a decision by December 2017, in an effort to maintain Entergy Louisiana’s current cycle for implementing rate adjustments, i.e., September 2018, without the need for filing a full base rate case proceeding. Waterford 3 Replacement Steam Generator Project See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project prudence review proceeding. The refund to customers of approximately $71 million as a result of the settlement approved by the LPSC was made in January 2017. Following a review by the parties, an unopposed joint report of proceedings was filed by the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana in May 2017. In May 2017 the LPSC accepted the joint report of proceedings resolving the matter. Deactivation or Retirement Decisions for Entergy Louisiana Plants As a term of the LPSC-approved settlement authorizing the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station, Entergy Louisiana agreed to make a filing with the LPSC to review its decisions to deactivate Ninemile 3 and Willow Glen 2 and 4 and its decision to retire Little Gypsy 1. In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana made its compliance filing with the LPSC. Entergy Louisiana, LPSC staff, and intervenors participated in a technical conference in March 2016 where Entergy Louisiana presented information on its deactivation/retirement decisions for these four units in addition to information on the current deactivation decisions for the ten-year planning horizon. Parties have requested further proceedings on the prudence of the decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4. No party contests the prudence of the decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4 or suggests reactivation of these units; however, issues have been raised related to Entergy Louisiana’s decision to give up its transmission service rights in MISO for Willow Glen 2 and 4 rather than placing the units into suspended status for the three-year term permitted by MISO. An evidentiary hearing was held in August 2017 and post-hearing briefs were submitted in October 2017. A decision is expected in 2018. Retail Rates - Gas 2016 Rate Stabilization Plan Filing In January 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2016. The filing of the evaluation report for test year 2016 reflected an earned return on common equity of 6.37%. As part of the original filing, pursuant to the extraordinary cost provision of the rate stabilization plan, Entergy Louisiana sought to recover approximately $1.5 million in deferred operation and maintenance expenses incurred to restore service and repair damage resulting from flooding and widespread rainfall in southeast Louisiana that occurred in August 2016. Entergy Louisiana requested to recover the prudently incurred August 2016 storm restoration costs over ten years, outside of the rate stabilization plan sharing provisions. As a result, Entergy Louisiana’s filing sought an annual increase in revenue of $1.4 million. Following review of the filing, except for the proposed extraordinary cost recovery, the LPSC staff confirmed Entergy Louisiana’s filing was consistent with the principles and requirements of the rate stabilization plan. The extraordinary cost recovery request associated with the 2016 flood-related deferred operation and maintenance expenses incurred for gas operations was removed from the rate stabilization plan pending LPSC consideration in a separate docket. In April 2017 the LPSC approved a joint report of proceedings and Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised evaluation report reflecting a $1.2 million annual increase in revenue with rates implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2017. In connection with the joint report of proceedings accepted by the LPSC, in May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed an application to initiate a separate proceeding to recover the deferred operation and maintenance expenses of $1.4 million incurred to restore service and repair damage resulting from flooding and widespread rainfall in southeast Louisiana that occurred in August 2016 through the extraordinary cost provision of the gas rate stabilization plan. The LPSC staff submitted its direct testimony in the proceeding recommending recovery of $0.9 million. The procedural schedule includes a hearing in February 2018. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed an application seeking a finding from the LPSC that Entergy Louisiana’s deployment of advanced electric and gas metering infrastructure is in the public interest. The parties reached an uncontested stipulation permitting implementation of Entergy Louisiana’s proposed AMI system, with modifications to the proposed customer charge. The stipulation also confirmed that Entergy Louisiana shall continue to include in rate base the remaining book value of the existing electric meters and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. In July 2017 the LPSC approved the stipulation. Filings with the MPSC Formula Rate Plan In March 2017, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2017 test year filing and 2016 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2016 calendar year and projected earned return for the 2017 calendar year to be within the formula rate plan bandwidth, resulting in no change in rates. In June 2017, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a stipulation that confirmed that Entergy Mississippi’s earned returns for both the 2016 look-back filing and 2017 test year were within the respective formula rate plan bandwidths. In June 2017 the MPSC approved the stipulation, which resulted in no change in rates. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2016, Entergy Mississippi filed an application seeking a finding from the MPSC that Entergy Mississippi’s deployment of advanced metering infrastructure is in the public interest. In May 2017 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff and Entergy Mississippi entered into and filed a joint stipulation supporting Entergy Mississippi’s filing, and the MPSC issued an order approving the filing without any material changes, finding that Entergy Mississippi’s deployment of AMI is in the public interest and granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The MPSC order also confirmed that Entergy Mississippi shall continue to include in rate base the remaining book value of existing meters that will be retired as part of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Filings with the City Council Retail Rates As discussed in the Form 10-K, in February 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a proposed implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through March 2020. As part of the proposal, Entergy New Orleans requested that the City Council identify its desired level of funding for the program during this time period and approve a cost recovery mechanism. In April 2017 the City Council approved an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through December 2019. The City Council directed that the $11.8 million balance reported for Energy Smart funds be used to continue funding the program for Entergy New Orleans’s legacy customers and that the Energy Smart Algiers program continue to be funded through the Algiers fuel adjustment clause, until additional customer funding is required for the legacy customers. In September 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a supplemental plan and proposed several options for an interim cost recovery mechanism necessary to recover program costs during the period between when existing funds directed to Energy Smart programs are depleted (estimated to be June 2018) and when new rates from the anticipated 2018 combined rate case, which will include a cost recovery mechanism for Energy Smart funding, take effect (estimated to be August 2019). Entergy New Orleans requested that the City Council approve a cost recovery mechanism prior to June 2018. Internal Restructuring As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a restructuring that would result in the transfer of substantially all of the assets and operations of Entergy New Orleans to a new entity, which would ultimately be owned by an existing Entergy subsidiary holding company. In May 2017 the City Council adopted a resolution approving the proposed internal restructuring pursuant to an agreement in principle with the City Council advisors and certain intervenors. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans will credit retail customers $10 million in 2017, $1.4 million in the first quarter of the year after the transaction closes, and $117,500 each month in the second year after the transaction closes until such time as new base rates go into effect as a result of the anticipated 2018 base rate case. Entergy New Orleans began crediting retail customers in June 2017. In June 2017 the FERC approved the transaction and, pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans will provide additional credits to retail customers of $5 million in each of the years 2018, 2019, and 2020. Entergy New Orleans expects to complete the internal restructuring in fourth quarter 2017. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application seeking a finding from the City Council that Entergy New Orleans’s deployment of advanced electric and gas metering infrastructure is in the public interest. In April 2017, Entergy New Orleans received intervenor testimony that was generally supportive of AMI deployment. The City Council’s advisors filed testimony in May 2017 recommending the adoption of AMI subject to certain modifications, including the denial of Entergy New Orleans’s proposed customer charge as a cost recovery mechanism. In June 2017 the procedural schedule was suspended to allow for settlement discussions. A status conference was held in October 2017, and the parties set another status conference for February 2018 with the intent to continue to pursue settlement in the interim. Filings with the PUCT Retail Rates 2011 Rate Case See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Texas’s 2011 rate case. As discussed in the Form 10-K, several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced in the Form 10-K, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. In April 2016 the Third Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the District Court’s decision on all points. Entergy Texas and other parties petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. In September 2017 the Texas Supreme Court denied the petitions for review. Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the Texas Supreme Court’s denial of the petition for review. That motion is pending. Other Filings In September 2016, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider. The proposed amended TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $29.5 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers. This amount includes the approximately $10.5 million annually that Entergy Texas is currently authorized to collect through the TCRF rider. In December 2016, Entergy Texas and the PUCT reached a settlement agreeing to the amended TCRF annual revenue requirement of $29.5 million. The PUCT approved the settlement and issued a final order in March 2017. Entergy Texas implemented the amended TCRF rider beginning with bills covering usage on and after March 20, 2017. In June 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application to amend its distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider by increasing the total collection from $8.65 million to approximately $19 million. In July 2017, Entergy Texas, the PUCT, and the parties in the proceeding entered into an unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement resulting in an amended DCRF annual revenue requirement of $18.3 million, with the resulting rates effective for usage no later than October 1, 2017. In September 2017 the PUCT issued its final order approving the unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement. The amended DCRF rider rates became effective for usage on and after September 1, 2017. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filing In April 2017 the Texas legislature enacted legislation that extends statutory support for AMI deployment to Entergy Texas and directs that if Entergy Texas elects to deploy AMI, it shall do so as rapidly as practicable. In July 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking an order from the PUCT approving Entergy Texas’s deployment of AMI. Entergy Texas proposed to replace existing meters with advanced meters that enable two-way data communication; design and build a secure and reliable network to support such communications; and implement support systems. AMI is intended to serve as the foundation of Entergy Texas’s modernized power grid. The filing identified a number of quantified and unquantified benefits, with Entergy Texas showing that its AMI deployment is expected to produce nominal net operational cost savings to customers of $33 million. Entergy Texas also sought to continue to include in rate base the remaining book value, approximately $41 million at December 31, 2016, of existing meters that will be retired as part of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Entergy Texas proposed a seven-year depreciable life for the new advanced meters, the three-year deployment of which is expected to begin in 2019. Entergy Texas also proposed a surcharge tariff to recover the reasonable and necessary costs it has and will incur under the deployment plan for the full deployment of advanced meters. Further, Entergy Texas is seeking approval of fees that would be charged to customers who choose to opt out of receiving service through an advanced meter and instead receive electric service with a non-standard meter. Subject to approval by the PUCT, deployment of the communications network is expected to begin in 2018. In October 2017, Entergy Texas and other parties entered into and filed an unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement. PUCT action on the stipulation and settlement agreement remains pending. Entergy Texas expects a decision from the PUCT by December 2017. Storm Cost Recovery Entergy Mississippi See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision. As of July 31, 2017, the balance in Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated storm damage provision was less than $10 million, therefore Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with September 2017 bills. System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceedings regarding the System Agreement, including the LPSC’s 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. In August 2017 the D.C. Circuit issued a decision addressing the LPSC’s appeal of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders. On the issue of the FERC’s implementation of the prospective remedy as of June 2005 and whether the bandwidth remedy should be extended for an additional 17 months in years 2004-2005, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the FERC’s implementation of the remedy and denied the LPSC’s appeal. On the issue of whether the operating companies should be required to issue refunds for the 20-month period from September 2001 to May 2003, the D.C. Circuit granted the FERC’s request for agency reconsideration and remanded that issue back to the FERC for further proceedings as requested by all parties to the appeal. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceedings As discussed in the Form 10-K, in June 2009 the LPSC filed a complaint requesting that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocated the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibited sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies. The LPSC’s complaint challenges sales made beginning in 2002 and requests refunds. In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and an ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denies Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirms FERC’s earlier rulings that Entergy’s original methodology for allocating energy costs to the opportunity sales was incorrect and, as a result, Entergy Arkansas must make payments to the other Utility operating companies to put them in the same position that they would have been in absent the incorrect allocation. The FERC clarified that interest should be included with the payments. The second order affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the rulings in the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision regarding the methodology that should be used to calculate the payments Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The FERC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that a full re-run of intra-system bills should be performed, but required that methodology be modified so that the sales have the same priority for purposes of energy allocation as joint account sales. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that adjustments to other System Agreement service schedules and excess bandwidth payments should not be taken into account when calculating the payments to be made by Entergy Arkansas. The FERC held that such adjustments and excess bandwidth payments should be taken into account, but ordered further proceedings before an ALJ to address whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology. In May 2016, Entergy Services filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order arguing that payments made by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced as a result of the timing of the LPSC’s approval of certain contracts. Entergy Services also filed a request for clarification and/or rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The APSC and the LPSC also filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order. In September 2017 the FERC issued an order denying the request for rehearing on the issue of whether any payments by Entergy Arkansas to the other Utility operating companies should be reduced due to the timing of the LPSC’s approval of Entergy Arkansas’s wholesale baseload contract with Entergy Louisiana. Pursuant to the procedural schedule established in the case, Entergy Services re-ran intra-system bills for the ten-year period 2000-2009 to quantify the effects of the FERC's ruling. In November 2016 the LPSC submitted testimony disputing certain aspects of the calculations, and Entergy Services submitted answering testimony in January 2017. In February 2017 the FERC staff filed testimony and Entergy Services filed responsive testimony. In March 2017 the LPSC filed rebuttal testimony. A hearing was held in May 2017. In July 2017 the ALJ issued an initial decision concluding that Entergy Arkansas should pay $86 million plus interest to the other Utility operating companies. In August 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, and FERC staff filed individual briefs on exceptions challenging various aspects of the initial decision. In September 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and FERC staff filed separate briefs opposing exceptions taken by various parties. The case is pending before the FERC. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing the initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order. The effect of the FERC’s decisions thus far in the case would be that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. Because further proceedings will still occur in the case, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case and its assessment of the April 2016 FERC orders, in the first quarter 2016, Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million, which includes interest, for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case, including its review of the July 2017 initial decision. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retail and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Entergy Arkansas, therefore, recorded a regulatory asset in the first quarter 2016 of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs. Complaint Against System Energy In January 2017 the APSC and MPSC filed a complaint with the FERC against System Energy. The complaint seeks a reduction in the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement pursuant to which System Energy sells its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. Entergy Arkansas also sells some of its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans under separate agreements. The current return on equity under the Unit Power Sales Agreement is 10.94%. The complaint alleges that the return on equity is unjust and unreasonable because current capital market and other considerations indicate that it is excessive. The complaint requests the FERC to institute proceedings to investigate the return on equity and establish a lower return on equity, and also requests that the FERC establish January 23, 2017 as a refund effective date. The complaint includes return on equity analysis that purports to establish that the range of reasonable return on equity for System Energy is between 8.37% and 8.67%. System Energy answered the complaint in February 2017 and disputes that a return on equity of 8.37% to 8.67% is just and reasonable. The LPSC and the City Council intervened in the proceeding expressing support for the complaint. System Energy is recording a provision against revenue for the potential outcome of this proceeding. In September 2017 the FERC established a refund effective date of January 23, 2017, consolidated the return on equity complaint proceeding with the proceeding related to System Energy’s Unit Power Sales Agreement amendments, discussed below, and directed the parties to engage in settlement proceedings before an ALJ. If the parties fail to come to an agreement during settlement proceedings, a prehearing conference will be held to establish a procedural schedule for hearing proceedings. Unit Power Sales Agreement In August 2017, System Energy submitted to the FERC proposed amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement pursuant to which System Energy sells its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. The filing proposes limited amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement to adopt (1) updated rates for use in calculating Grand Gulf plant depreciation and amortization expenses and (2) updated nuclear decommissioning cost annual revenue requirements, both of which are recovered through the Unit Power Sales Agreement rate formula. The proposed amendments would result in lower charges to the Utility operating companies that buy capacity and energy from System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The proposed changes are based on updated depreciation and nuclear decommissioning studies that take into account the renewal of Grand Gulf’s operating license for a term through November 1, 2044. System Energy requested that the FERC accept the amendments effective October 1, 2017. In September 2017 the FERC accepted System Energy’s proposed Unit Power Sales Agreement amendments, subject to further proceedings to consider the justness and reasonableness of the amendments. Because the amendments propose a rate decrease, the FERC also initiated an investigation under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act to determine if the rate decrease should be lower than proposed. The FERC accepted the proposed amendments effective October 1, 2017, subject to refund pending the outcome of the further settlement and/or hearing proceedings, and established a refund effective date of October 11, 2017 with respect to the rate decrease. The FERC also consolidated the Unit Power Sales Agreement amendment proceeding with the proceeding related to the complaint filed by the APSC and MPSC, discussed above, and directed the parties to engage in settlement proceedings before an ALJ. If the parties fail to come to an agreement during settlement proceedings, a prehearing conference will be held to establish a procedural schedule for hearing proceedings.