Rate And Regulatory Matters

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Rate and Regulatory Matters

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

Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities

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.

Regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

System Energy

In a filing made with the FERC in March 2018, Entergy proposed revisions to the Unit Power Sales Agreement, among other agreements, to reflect the effects of the Tax Act. In the filing System Energy proposed to return all of its unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to its customers by the end of 2018. In May 2018 the FERC accepted System Energy’s proposed tax revisions with an effective date of June 1, 2018, subject to refund and the outcome of settlement and hearing procedures.  Settlement discussions were terminated in April 2019, and the hearing was held in March 2020. The retail regulators of the Utility operating companies that are parties to the Unit Power Sales Agreement are challenging the treatment and amount of excess tax liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions related to nuclear decommissioning. The initial decision is due in July 2020.

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery

Entergy Arkansas

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01462 per kWh to $0.01052 per kWh. The redetermined rate became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2020 through the normal operation of the tariff.

Entergy Louisiana

In March 2020 the LPSC staff provided notice of an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2016 through 2019. Discovery has not yet commenced.

Entergy Texas

In September 2019, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period from April 2016 through March 2019. During the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas incurred approximately $1.6 billion in Texas jurisdictional eligible fuel and purchased power expenses, net of certain revenues credited to such expenses and other adjustments. Entergy Texas estimated an under-recovery balance of approximately $25.8 million, including interest, which Entergy Texas requested authority to carry over as the beginning balance for the subsequent reconciliation period beginning April 2019. In March 2020 an intervenor filed testimony proposing that the PUCT disallow: (1) $2 million in replacement power costs associated with generation outages during the reconciliation period; and (2) $24.4 million associated with the operation of the Spindletop natural gas storage facility during the reconciliation period.  In April 2020, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony refuting all points raised by the intervenor.  A hearing on the merits is currently set for May 2020.

Retail Rate Proceedings

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies.  The following are updates to that discussion.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)

Retail Rates - Electric

2018 Formula Rate Plan Filing

Commercial operation at Lake Charles Power Station commenced in March 2020. In March 2020, Entergy Louisiana filed an update to its 2018 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the estimated first-year revenue requirement of $108 million associated with the Lake Charles Power Station. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of April 2020.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Formula Rate Plan Filing

In March 2020, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2020 test year filing and 2019 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2020 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2020 test year filing shows a $24.6 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.51% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 look-back filing compares actual 2019 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $7.3 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In accordance with the MPSC-approved revisions to the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2019 retail revenues, effective with the April 2020 billing cycle, subject to refund, pending a final MPSC order. A final order is expected in the second quarter 2020, with the resulting final rates, including amounts above the 2% cap of 2019 retail revenues, effective July 2020.

Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans)

Energy Efficiency

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2019, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking approval of an implementation plan for the Energy Smart energy efficiency program from April 2020 through December 2022. Entergy New Orleans proposed to recover the costs of the program through mechanisms previously approved by the City Council or through the energy efficiency cost recovery rider, which was approved in the 2018 combined rate case resolution. In February 2020 the City Council approved Entergy New Orleans’s application.

2018 Base Rate Case Filing

See the Form 10-K for discussion of the electric and gas base rate case filed in September 2018. In response to the City Council’s November 2019 resolution in the rate case, Entergy New Orleans made a compliance filing in December 2019 and also filed timely a petition for appeal and judicial review and for stay of or injunctive relief alleging that the resolution is unlawful in failing to produce just and reasonable rates. A hearing on the requested injunction was scheduled in Civil District Court for February 2020, but by joint motion of the City Council and Entergy New Orleans, the Civil District Court issued an order for a limited remand to the City Council to consider a potential agreement in principle/stipulation at its February 20, 2020 meeting. On February 17, 2020, Entergy New Orleans filed

with the City Council an agreement in principle between Entergy New Orleans and the City Council’s advisors. On February 20, 2020, the City Council voted to approve the proposed agreement in principle and issued a resolution modifying the required treatment of certain accumulated deferred income taxes. As a result of the agreement in principle, the total annual revenue requirement reduction will be approximately $45 million ($42 million electric, including $29 million in rider reductions; and $3 million gas). As a result, Entergy New Orleans fully implemented the new rates in April 2020. The merits of the appeal will be subject to a separate procedural schedule issued by the Civil District Court.

2020 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In April 2020, Entergy New Orleans filed a motion with the City Council to delay its formula rate plan filing until June 2020. In May 2020 the City Council issued an order extending the filing deadline for Entergy New Orleans’s formula rate plan filing to June 29, 2020.

Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Texas)

Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider

In March 2020, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect approximately $23.6 million annually, or $20.4 million in incremental annual DCRF revenue beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019.

Transmission Cost Recovery Factor (TCRF) Rider

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its TCRF rider. The new TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $19.4 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2019. In January 2020 the PUCT issued an order approving an unopposed settlement providing for recovery of the requested revenue requirement. Entergy Texas implemented the amended rider beginning with bills covering usage on and after January 23, 2020.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

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

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2018 the LPSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s March 2018 order affirming the ALJ’s initial decision in the consolidated proceedings. Entergy filed in May 2018 the bandwidth true-up payments and receipts for the 2011-2014 rate filings and the payments were made in May 2018. In April 2020 the FERC issued an order partially granting the LPSC’s rehearing request.  In the order the FERC reversed its prior finding and determined that the tax gain portion of the Waterford 3 financing accumulated deferred income tax should be included in the bandwidth calculation.  The order requires Entergy Services to redetermine bandwidth true-up payments and receipts for the 2010-2012 test years.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the FERC’s opportunity sales orders have been appealed to the D.C. Circuit by Entergy, the LPSC, and the APSC. In February 2020 all of the appeals were consolidated and in April 2020 the D.C. Circuit established a briefing schedule. Briefing will occur in May 2020 through September 2020.    

Also as discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC requesting approval of a special rider tariff to recover the costs of its opportunity sales payments from its retail customers over a 24-month period. In January 2020 the Attorney General and Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed testimony opposing the recovery by Entergy Arkansas of the opportunity sales payment but also claiming that certain components of the payment should be segregated and refunded to customers. In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony. Also in March 2020, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and the Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed a joint motion asking the APSC to issue a final decision based on the record in the proceeding and cancel the April 2020 evidentiary hearing. The Arkansas Attorney General did not oppose the request, which was granted by the APSC in March 2020. A final decision is expected in July 2020.

Complaints Against System Energy

Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2019, in a proceeding that did not involve Entergy, the FERC issued an order addressing the methodology for determining the return on equity applicable to transmission owners in MISO. Thereafter, the participants in the System Energy proceeding agreed to amend the procedural schedule to allow the participants to file supplemental testimony addressing the order in the MISO transmission owner proceeding (Opinion No. 569).

In February 2020 the LPSC, the MPSC and APSC, and the FERC trial staff filed supplemental testimony addressing Opinion No. 569 and how it would affect the return on equity evaluation for the two complaint periods concerning System Energy. For the first refund period, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569 methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.44%; the MPSC and APSC argue for an authorized return on equity of 8.41%; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 9.22%. For the second refund period and on a prospective basis, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569 methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.89%; the MPSC and APSC argue that an authorized return on equity of 8.01% may be appropriate; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 8.66%.

In April 2020, System Energy filed supplemental answering testimony addressing Opinion No. 569. System Energy argues that the Opinion No. 569 methodology is conceptually and analytically defective for purposes of establishing just and reasonable authorized return on equity determinations and proposes an alternative approach. As its primary recommendation, System Energy continues to support the return on equity determinations in its March 2019 testimony for the first refund period and its June 2019 testimony for the second refund period. Under the Opinion No. 569 methodology, System Energy calculates a “presumptively just and reasonable range” for the authorized return on equity for the first refund period of 8.57% to 9.52%, and for the second refund period of 8.28% to 9.11%. System Energy argues that these ranges are not just and reasonable results. Under its proposed alternative methodology, System Energy calculates an authorized return on equity of 10.26% for the first refund period, which also falls within the presumptively just and reasonable range calculated for the second refund period and prospectively.

The schedule was further revised in March 2020, and rebuttal testimony addressing Opinion No. 569 is due in June 2020; the hearing in the System Energy proceeding will commence in August 2020; and the initial decision will be due in December 2020.

Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. In February 2019 the presiding ALJ ruled that the hearing ordered by the FERC includes the issue of whether specific subcategories of accumulated deferred income tax should be included in, or excluded from, System Energy’s formula rate. In March 2019 the LPSC, MPSC, APSC, and City

Council filed direct testimony. The LPSC testimony sought refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income taxes associated with uncertain tax positions, and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest, as well as interest on those amounts.

In June 2019 System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should reject all claims for refunds.  Among other things, System Energy argued that claims for refunds of the costs of lease renewal payments and capital additions should be rejected because those costs were recovered consistent with the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate, System Energy was not over or double recovering any costs, and customers will save costs over the initial and renewal terms of the leases.  System Energy argued that claims for refunds associated with liabilities arising from uncertain tax positions should be rejected because the liabilities do not provide cost-free capital, the repayment timing of the liabilities is uncertain, and the outcome of the underlying tax positions is uncertain.  System Energy’s testimony also challenged the refund calculations supplied by the other parties.

In August 2019 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony seeking refunds for rate base reductions for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions. The FERC trial staff also argued that System Energy recovered $32 million more than it should have in depreciation expense for capital additions. In September 2019, System Energy filed cross-answering testimony disputing the FERC trial staff’s arguments for refunds, stating that the FERC trial staff’s position regarding depreciation rates for capital additions is not unreasonable, but explaining that any change in depreciation expense is only one element of a Unit Power Sales Agreement re-billing calculation. Adjustments to depreciation expense in any re-billing under the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate will also involve changes to accumulated depreciation, accumulated deferred income taxes, and other formula elements as needed. In October 2019 the LPSC filed rebuttal testimony increasing the amount of refunds sought for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions.  The LPSC now seeks approximately $512 million, plus interest, which is approximately $170 million through March 31, 2020.  The FERC trial staff also filed rebuttal testimony in which it seeks refunds of a similar amount as the LPSC for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions.  The LPSC testimony also argued that adjustments to depreciation rates should affect rate base on a prospective basis only.

A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019. In April 2020 the ALJ issued the initial decision. Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues. First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million. The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service. The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy. In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively. Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through March 31, 2020, is approximately $397 million, plus interest, which is approximately $96 million through March 31, 2020. The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward. Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections. If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $18 million, which includes interest through March 31, 2020.

The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. System Energy plans to file briefs on exceptions to the FERC, re-urging its positions and requesting the reversal of many of the findings in the ALJ’s initial decision, including the lease renewal and uncertain tax position issues. The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC. Briefs on exceptions from all parties are scheduled for June 2020, and briefs opposing

exceptions are scheduled for September 2020. The FERC will then review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision.

Entergy Arkansas [Member]

Rate and Regulatory Matters

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

Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities

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.

Regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

System Energy

In a filing made with the FERC in March 2018, Entergy proposed revisions to the Unit Power Sales Agreement, among other agreements, to reflect the effects of the Tax Act. In the filing System Energy proposed to return all of its unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to its customers by the end of 2018. In May 2018 the FERC accepted System Energy’s proposed tax revisions with an effective date of June 1, 2018, subject to refund and the outcome of settlement and hearing procedures.  Settlement discussions were terminated in April 2019, and the hearing was held in March 2020. The retail regulators of the Utility operating companies that are parties to the Unit Power Sales Agreement are challenging the treatment and amount of excess tax liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions related to nuclear decommissioning. The initial decision is due in July 2020.

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery

Entergy Arkansas

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01462 per kWh to $0.01052 per kWh. The redetermined rate became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2020 through the normal operation of the tariff.

Entergy Louisiana

In March 2020 the LPSC staff provided notice of an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2016 through 2019. Discovery has not yet commenced.

Entergy Texas

In September 2019, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period from April 2016 through March 2019. During the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas incurred approximately $1.6 billion in Texas jurisdictional eligible fuel and purchased power expenses, net of certain revenues credited to such expenses and other adjustments. Entergy Texas estimated an under-recovery balance of approximately $25.8 million, including interest, which Entergy Texas requested authority to carry over as the beginning balance for the subsequent reconciliation period beginning April 2019. In March 2020 an intervenor filed testimony proposing that the PUCT disallow: (1) $2 million in replacement power costs associated with generation outages during the reconciliation period; and (2) $24.4 million associated with the operation of the Spindletop natural gas storage facility during the reconciliation period.  In April 2020, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony refuting all points raised by the intervenor.  A hearing on the merits is currently set for May 2020.

Retail Rate Proceedings

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies.  The following are updates to that discussion.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)

Retail Rates - Electric

2018 Formula Rate Plan Filing

Commercial operation at Lake Charles Power Station commenced in March 2020. In March 2020, Entergy Louisiana filed an update to its 2018 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the estimated first-year revenue requirement of $108 million associated with the Lake Charles Power Station. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of April 2020.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Formula Rate Plan Filing

In March 2020, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2020 test year filing and 2019 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2020 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2020 test year filing shows a $24.6 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.51% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 look-back filing compares actual 2019 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $7.3 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In accordance with the MPSC-approved revisions to the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2019 retail revenues, effective with the April 2020 billing cycle, subject to refund, pending a final MPSC order. A final order is expected in the second quarter 2020, with the resulting final rates, including amounts above the 2% cap of 2019 retail revenues, effective July 2020.

Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans)

Energy Efficiency

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2019, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking approval of an implementation plan for the Energy Smart energy efficiency program from April 2020 through December 2022. Entergy New Orleans proposed to recover the costs of the program through mechanisms previously approved by the City Council or through the energy efficiency cost recovery rider, which was approved in the 2018 combined rate case resolution. In February 2020 the City Council approved Entergy New Orleans’s application.

2018 Base Rate Case Filing

See the Form 10-K for discussion of the electric and gas base rate case filed in September 2018. In response to the City Council’s November 2019 resolution in the rate case, Entergy New Orleans made a compliance filing in December 2019 and also filed timely a petition for appeal and judicial review and for stay of or injunctive relief alleging that the resolution is unlawful in failing to produce just and reasonable rates. A hearing on the requested injunction was scheduled in Civil District Court for February 2020, but by joint motion of the City Council and Entergy New Orleans, the Civil District Court issued an order for a limited remand to the City Council to consider a potential agreement in principle/stipulation at its February 20, 2020 meeting. On February 17, 2020, Entergy New Orleans filed

with the City Council an agreement in principle between Entergy New Orleans and the City Council’s advisors. On February 20, 2020, the City Council voted to approve the proposed agreement in principle and issued a resolution modifying the required treatment of certain accumulated deferred income taxes. As a result of the agreement in principle, the total annual revenue requirement reduction will be approximately $45 million ($42 million electric, including $29 million in rider reductions; and $3 million gas). As a result, Entergy New Orleans fully implemented the new rates in April 2020. The merits of the appeal will be subject to a separate procedural schedule issued by the Civil District Court.

2020 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In April 2020, Entergy New Orleans filed a motion with the City Council to delay its formula rate plan filing until June 2020. In May 2020 the City Council issued an order extending the filing deadline for Entergy New Orleans’s formula rate plan filing to June 29, 2020.

Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Texas)

Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider

In March 2020, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect approximately $23.6 million annually, or $20.4 million in incremental annual DCRF revenue beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019.

Transmission Cost Recovery Factor (TCRF) Rider

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its TCRF rider. The new TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $19.4 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2019. In January 2020 the PUCT issued an order approving an unopposed settlement providing for recovery of the requested revenue requirement. Entergy Texas implemented the amended rider beginning with bills covering usage on and after January 23, 2020.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

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

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2018 the LPSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s March 2018 order affirming the ALJ’s initial decision in the consolidated proceedings. Entergy filed in May 2018 the bandwidth true-up payments and receipts for the 2011-2014 rate filings and the payments were made in May 2018. In April 2020 the FERC issued an order partially granting the LPSC’s rehearing request.  In the order the FERC reversed its prior finding and determined that the tax gain portion of the Waterford 3 financing accumulated deferred income tax should be included in the bandwidth calculation.  The order requires Entergy Services to redetermine bandwidth true-up payments and receipts for the 2010-2012 test years.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the FERC’s opportunity sales orders have been appealed to the D.C. Circuit by Entergy, the LPSC, and the APSC. In February 2020 all of the appeals were consolidated and in April 2020 the D.C. Circuit established a briefing schedule. Briefing will occur in May 2020 through September 2020.    

Also as discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC requesting approval of a special rider tariff to recover the costs of its opportunity sales payments from its retail customers over a 24-month period. In January 2020 the Attorney General and Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed testimony opposing the recovery by Entergy Arkansas of the opportunity sales payment but also claiming that certain components of the payment should be segregated and refunded to customers. In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony. Also in March 2020, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and the Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed a joint motion asking the APSC to issue a final decision based on the record in the proceeding and cancel the April 2020 evidentiary hearing. The Arkansas Attorney General did not oppose the request, which was granted by the APSC in March 2020. A final decision is expected in July 2020.

Complaints Against System Energy

Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2019, in a proceeding that did not involve Entergy, the FERC issued an order addressing the methodology for determining the return on equity applicable to transmission owners in MISO. Thereafter, the participants in the System Energy proceeding agreed to amend the procedural schedule to allow the participants to file supplemental testimony addressing the order in the MISO transmission owner proceeding (Opinion No. 569).

In February 2020 the LPSC, the MPSC and APSC, and the FERC trial staff filed supplemental testimony addressing Opinion No. 569 and how it would affect the return on equity evaluation for the two complaint periods concerning System Energy. For the first refund period, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569 methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.44%; the MPSC and APSC argue for an authorized return on equity of 8.41%; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 9.22%. For the second refund period and on a prospective basis, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569 methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.89%; the MPSC and APSC argue that an authorized return on equity of 8.01% may be appropriate; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 8.66%.

In April 2020, System Energy filed supplemental answering testimony addressing Opinion No. 569. System Energy argues that the Opinion No. 569 methodology is conceptually and analytically defective for purposes of establishing just and reasonable authorized return on equity determinations and proposes an alternative approach. As its primary recommendation, System Energy continues to support the return on equity determinations in its March 2019 testimony for the first refund period and its June 2019 testimony for the second refund period. Under the Opinion No. 569 methodology, System Energy calculates a “presumptively just and reasonable range” for the authorized return on equity for the first refund period of 8.57% to 9.52%, and for the second refund period of 8.28% to 9.11%. System Energy argues that these ranges are not just and reasonable results. Under its proposed alternative methodology, System Energy calculates an authorized return on equity of 10.26% for the first refund period, which also falls within the presumptively just and reasonable range calculated for the second refund period and prospectively.

The schedule was further revised in March 2020, and rebuttal testimony addressing Opinion No. 569 is due in June 2020; the hearing in the System Energy proceeding will commence in August 2020; and the initial decision will be due in December 2020.

Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. In February 2019 the presiding ALJ ruled that the hearing ordered by the FERC includes the issue of whether specific subcategories of accumulated deferred income tax should be included in, or excluded from, System Energy’s formula rate. In March 2019 the LPSC, MPSC, APSC, and City

Council filed direct testimony. The LPSC testimony sought refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income taxes associated with uncertain tax positions, and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest, as well as interest on those amounts.

In June 2019 System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should reject all claims for refunds.  Among other things, System Energy argued that claims for refunds of the costs of lease renewal payments and capital additions should be rejected because those costs were recovered consistent with the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate, System Energy was not over or double recovering any costs, and customers will save costs over the initial and renewal terms of the leases.  System Energy argued that claims for refunds associated with liabilities arising from uncertain tax positions should be rejected because the liabilities do not provide cost-free capital, the repayment timing of the liabilities is uncertain, and the outcome of the underlying tax positions is uncertain.  System Energy’s testimony also challenged the refund calculations supplied by the other parties.

In August 2019 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony seeking refunds for rate base reductions for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions. The FERC trial staff also argued that System Energy recovered $32 million more than it should have in depreciation expense for capital additions. In September 2019, System Energy filed cross-answering testimony disputing the FERC trial staff’s arguments for refunds, stating that the FERC trial staff’s position regarding depreciation rates for capital additions is not unreasonable, but explaining that any change in depreciation expense is only one element of a Unit Power Sales Agreement re-billing calculation. Adjustments to depreciation expense in any re-billing under the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate will also involve changes to accumulated depreciation, accumulated deferred income taxes, and other formula elements as needed. In October 2019 the LPSC filed rebuttal testimony increasing the amount of refunds sought for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions.  The LPSC now seeks approximately $512 million, plus interest, which is approximately $170 million through March 31, 2020.  The FERC trial staff also filed rebuttal testimony in which it seeks refunds of a similar amount as the LPSC for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions.  The LPSC testimony also argued that adjustments to depreciation rates should affect rate base on a prospective basis only.

A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019. In April 2020 the ALJ issued the initial decision. Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues. First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million. The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service. The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy. In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively. Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through March 31, 2020, is approximately $397 million, plus interest, which is approximately $96 million through March 31, 2020. The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward. Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections. If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $18 million, which includes interest through March 31, 2020.

The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. System Energy plans to file briefs on exceptions to the FERC, re-urging its positions and requesting the reversal of many of the findings in the ALJ’s initial decision, including the lease renewal and uncertain tax position issues. The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC. Briefs on exceptions from all parties are scheduled for June 2020, and briefs opposing

exceptions are scheduled for September 2020. The FERC will then review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision.

Entergy Louisiana [Member]

Rate and Regulatory Matters

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

Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities

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.

Regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

System Energy

In a filing made with the FERC in March 2018, Entergy proposed revisions to the Unit Power Sales Agreement, among other agreements, to reflect the effects of the Tax Act. In the filing System Energy proposed to return all of its unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to its customers by the end of 2018. In May 2018 the FERC accepted System Energy’s proposed tax revisions with an effective date of June 1, 2018, subject to refund and the outcome of settlement and hearing procedures.  Settlement discussions were terminated in April 2019, and the hearing was held in March 2020. The retail regulators of the Utility operating companies that are parties to the Unit Power Sales Agreement are challenging the treatment and amount of excess tax liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions related to nuclear decommissioning. The initial decision is due in July 2020.

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery

Entergy Arkansas

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01462 per kWh to $0.01052 per kWh. The redetermined rate became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2020 through the normal operation of the tariff.

Entergy Louisiana

In March 2020 the LPSC staff provided notice of an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2016 through 2019. Discovery has not yet commenced.

Entergy Texas

In September 2019, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period from April 2016 through March 2019. During the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas incurred approximately $1.6 billion in Texas jurisdictional eligible fuel and purchased power expenses, net of certain revenues credited to such expenses and other adjustments. Entergy Texas estimated an under-recovery balance of approximately $25.8 million, including interest, which Entergy Texas requested authority to carry over as the beginning balance for the subsequent reconciliation period beginning April 2019. In March 2020 an intervenor filed testimony proposing that the PUCT disallow: (1) $2 million in replacement power costs associated with generation outages during the reconciliation period; and (2) $24.4 million associated with the operation of the Spindletop natural gas storage facility during the reconciliation period.  In April 2020, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony refuting all points raised by the intervenor.  A hearing on the merits is currently set for May 2020.

Retail Rate Proceedings

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies.  The following are updates to that discussion.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)

Retail Rates - Electric

2018 Formula Rate Plan Filing

Commercial operation at Lake Charles Power Station commenced in March 2020. In March 2020, Entergy Louisiana filed an update to its 2018 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the estimated first-year revenue requirement of $108 million associated with the Lake Charles Power Station. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of April 2020.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Formula Rate Plan Filing

In March 2020, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2020 test year filing and 2019 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2020 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2020 test year filing shows a $24.6 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.51% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 look-back filing compares actual 2019 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $7.3 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In accordance with the MPSC-approved revisions to the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2019 retail revenues, effective with the April 2020 billing cycle, subject to refund, pending a final MPSC order. A final order is expected in the second quarter 2020, with the resulting final rates, including amounts above the 2% cap of 2019 retail revenues, effective July 2020.

Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans)

Energy Efficiency

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2019, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking approval of an implementation plan for the Energy Smart energy efficiency program from April 2020 through December 2022. Entergy New Orleans proposed to recover the costs of the program through mechanisms previously approved by the City Council or through the energy efficiency cost recovery rider, which was approved in the 2018 combined rate case resolution. In February 2020 the City Council approved Entergy New Orleans’s application.

2018 Base Rate Case Filing

See the Form 10-K for discussion of the electric and gas base rate case filed in September 2018. In response to the City Council’s November 2019 resolution in the rate case, Entergy New Orleans made a compliance filing in December 2019 and also filed timely a petition for appeal and judicial review and for stay of or injunctive relief alleging that the resolution is unlawful in failing to produce just and reasonable rates. A hearing on the requested injunction was scheduled in Civil District Court for February 2020, but by joint motion of the City Council and Entergy New Orleans, the Civil District Court issued an order for a limited remand to the City Council to consider a potential agreement in principle/stipulation at its February 20, 2020 meeting. On February 17, 2020, Entergy New Orleans filed

with the City Council an agreement in principle between Entergy New Orleans and the City Council’s advisors. On February 20, 2020, the City Council voted to approve the proposed agreement in principle and issued a resolution modifying the required treatment of certain accumulated deferred income taxes. As a result of the agreement in principle, the total annual revenue requirement reduction will be approximately $45 million ($42 million electric, including $29 million in rider reductions; and $3 million gas). As a result, Entergy New Orleans fully implemented the new rates in April 2020. The merits of the appeal will be subject to a separate procedural schedule issued by the Civil District Court.

2020 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In April 2020, Entergy New Orleans filed a motion with the City Council to delay its formula rate plan filing until June 2020. In May 2020 the City Council issued an order extending the filing deadline for Entergy New Orleans’s formula rate plan filing to June 29, 2020.

Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Texas)

Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider

In March 2020, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect approximately $23.6 million annually, or $20.4 million in incremental annual DCRF revenue beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019.

Transmission Cost Recovery Factor (TCRF) Rider

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its TCRF rider. The new TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $19.4 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2019. In January 2020 the PUCT issued an order approving an unopposed settlement providing for recovery of the requested revenue requirement. Entergy Texas implemented the amended rider beginning with bills covering usage on and after January 23, 2020.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

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

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2018 the LPSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s March 2018 order affirming the ALJ’s initial decision in the consolidated proceedings. Entergy filed in May 2018 the bandwidth true-up payments and receipts for the 2011-2014 rate filings and the payments were made in May 2018. In April 2020 the FERC issued an order partially granting the LPSC’s rehearing request.  In the order the FERC reversed its prior finding and determined that the tax gain portion of the Waterford 3 financing accumulated deferred income tax should be included in the bandwidth calculation.  The order requires Entergy Services to redetermine bandwidth true-up payments and receipts for the 2010-2012 test years.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the FERC’s opportunity sales orders have been appealed to the D.C. Circuit by Entergy, the LPSC, and the APSC. In February 2020 all of the appeals were consolidated and in April 2020 the D.C. Circuit established a briefing schedule. Briefing will occur in May 2020 through September 2020.    

Also as discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC requesting approval of a special rider tariff to recover the costs of its opportunity sales payments from its retail customers over a 24-month period. In January 2020 the Attorney General and Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed testimony opposing the recovery by Entergy Arkansas of the opportunity sales payment but also claiming that certain components of the payment should be segregated and refunded to customers. In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony. Also in March 2020, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and the Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed a joint motion asking the APSC to issue a final decision based on the record in the proceeding and cancel the April 2020 evidentiary hearing. The Arkansas Attorney General did not oppose the request, which was granted by the APSC in March 2020. A final decision is expected in July 2020.

Complaints Against System Energy

Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2019, in a proceeding that did not involve Entergy, the FERC issued an order addressing the methodology for determining the return on equity applicable to transmission owners in MISO. Thereafter, the participants in the System Energy proceeding agreed to amend the procedural schedule to allow the participants to file supplemental testimony addressing the order in the MISO transmission owner proceeding (Opinion No. 569).

In February 2020 the LPSC, the MPSC and APSC, and the FERC trial staff filed supplemental testimony addressing Opinion No. 569 and how it would affect the return on equity evaluation for the two complaint periods concerning System Energy. For the first refund period, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569 methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.44%; the MPSC and APSC argue for an authorized return on equity of 8.41%; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 9.22%. For the second refund period and on a prospective basis, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569 methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.89%; the MPSC and APSC argue that an authorized return on equity of 8.01% may be appropriate; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 8.66%.

In April 2020, System Energy filed supplemental answering testimony addressing Opinion No. 569. System Energy argues that the Opinion No. 569 methodology is conceptually and analytically defective for purposes of establishing just and reasonable authorized return on equity determinations and proposes an alternative approach. As its primary recommendation, System Energy continues to support the return on equity determinations in its March 2019 testimony for the first refund period and its June 2019 testimony for the second refund period. Under the Opinion No. 569 methodology, System Energy calculates a “presumptively just and reasonable range” for the authorized return on equity for the first refund period of 8.57% to 9.52%, and for the second refund period of 8.28% to 9.11%. System Energy argues that these ranges are not just and reasonable results. Under its proposed alternative methodology, System Energy calculates an authorized return on equity of 10.26% for the first refund period, which also falls within the presumptively just and reasonable range calculated for the second refund period and prospectively.

The schedule was further revised in March 2020, and rebuttal testimony addressing Opinion No. 569 is due in June 2020; the hearing in the System Energy proceeding will commence in August 2020; and the initial decision will be due in December 2020.

Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. In February 2019 the presiding ALJ ruled that the hearing ordered by the FERC includes the issue of whether specific subcategories of accumulated deferred income tax should be included in, or excluded from, System Energy’s formula rate. In March 2019 the LPSC, MPSC, APSC, and City

Council filed direct testimony. The LPSC testimony sought refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income taxes associated with uncertain tax positions, and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest, as well as interest on those amounts.

In June 2019 System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should reject all claims for refunds.  Among other things, System Energy argued that claims for refunds of the costs of lease renewal payments and capital additions should be rejected because those costs were recovered consistent with the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate, System Energy was not over or double recovering any costs, and customers will save costs over the initial and renewal terms of the leases.  System Energy argued that claims for refunds associated with liabilities arising from uncertain tax positions should be rejected because the liabilities do not provide cost-free capital, the repayment timing of the liabilities is uncertain, and the outcome of the underlying tax positions is uncertain.  System Energy’s testimony also challenged the refund calculations supplied by the other parties.

In August 2019 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony seeking refunds for rate base reductions for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions. The FERC trial staff also argued that System Energy recovered $32 million more than it should have in depreciation expense for capital additions. In September 2019, System Energy filed cross-answering testimony disputing the FERC trial staff’s arguments for refunds, stating that the FERC trial staff’s position regarding depreciation rates for capital additions is not unreasonable, but explaining that any change in depreciation expense is only one element of a Unit Power Sales Agreement re-billing calculation. Adjustments to depreciation expense in any re-billing under the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate will also involve changes to accumulated depreciation, accumulated deferred income taxes, and other formula elements as needed. In October 2019 the LPSC filed rebuttal testimony increasing the amount of refunds sought for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions.  The LPSC now seeks approximately $512 million, plus interest, which is approximately $170 million through March 31, 2020.  The FERC trial staff also filed rebuttal testimony in which it seeks refunds of a similar amount as the LPSC for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions.  The LPSC testimony also argued that adjustments to depreciation rates should affect rate base on a prospective basis only.

A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019. In April 2020 the ALJ issued the initial decision. Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues. First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million. The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service. The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy. In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively. Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through March 31, 2020, is approximately $397 million, plus interest, which is approximately $96 million through March 31, 2020. The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward. Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections. If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $18 million, which includes interest through March 31, 2020.

The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. System Energy plans to file briefs on exceptions to the FERC, re-urging its positions and requesting the reversal of many of the findings in the ALJ’s initial decision, including the lease renewal and uncertain tax position issues. The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC. Briefs on exceptions from all parties are scheduled for June 2020, and briefs opposing

exceptions are scheduled for September 2020. The FERC will then review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision.

Entergy Mississippi [Member]

Rate and Regulatory Matters

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

Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities

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.

Regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

System Energy

In a filing made with the FERC in March 2018, Entergy proposed revisions to the Unit Power Sales Agreement, among other agreements, to reflect the effects of the Tax Act. In the filing System Energy proposed to return all of its unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to its customers by the end of 2018. In May 2018 the FERC accepted System Energy’s proposed tax revisions with an effective date of June 1, 2018, subject to refund and the outcome of settlement and hearing procedures.  Settlement discussions were terminated in April 2019, and the hearing was held in March 2020. The retail regulators of the Utility operating companies that are parties to the Unit Power Sales Agreement are challenging the treatment and amount of excess tax liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions related to nuclear decommissioning. The initial decision is due in July 2020.

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery

Entergy Arkansas

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01462 per kWh to $0.01052 per kWh. The redetermined rate became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2020 through the normal operation of the tariff.

Entergy Louisiana

In March 2020 the LPSC staff provided notice of an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2016 through 2019. Discovery has not yet commenced.

Entergy Texas

In September 2019, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period from April 2016 through March 2019. During the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas incurred approximately $1.6 billion in Texas jurisdictional eligible fuel and purchased power expenses, net of certain revenues credited to such expenses and other adjustments. Entergy Texas estimated an under-recovery balance of approximately $25.8 million, including interest, which Entergy Texas requested authority to carry over as the beginning balance for the subsequent reconciliation period beginning April 2019. In March 2020 an intervenor filed testimony proposing that the PUCT disallow: (1) $2 million in replacement power costs associated with generation outages during the reconciliation period; and (2) $24.4 million associated with the operation of the Spindletop natural gas storage facility during the reconciliation period.  In April 2020, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony refuting all points raised by the intervenor.  A hearing on the merits is currently set for May 2020.

Retail Rate Proceedings

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies.  The following are updates to that discussion.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)

Retail Rates - Electric

2018 Formula Rate Plan Filing

Commercial operation at Lake Charles Power Station commenced in March 2020. In March 2020, Entergy Louisiana filed an update to its 2018 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the estimated first-year revenue requirement of $108 million associated with the Lake Charles Power Station. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of April 2020.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Formula Rate Plan Filing

In March 2020, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2020 test year filing and 2019 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2020 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2020 test year filing shows a $24.6 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.51% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 look-back filing compares actual 2019 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $7.3 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In accordance with the MPSC-approved revisions to the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2019 retail revenues, effective with the April 2020 billing cycle, subject to refund, pending a final MPSC order. A final order is expected in the second quarter 2020, with the resulting final rates, including amounts above the 2% cap of 2019 retail revenues, effective July 2020.

Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans)

Energy Efficiency

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2019, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking approval of an implementation plan for the Energy Smart energy efficiency program from April 2020 through December 2022. Entergy New Orleans proposed to recover the costs of the program through mechanisms previously approved by the City Council or through the energy efficiency cost recovery rider, which was approved in the 2018 combined rate case resolution. In February 2020 the City Council approved Entergy New Orleans’s application.

2018 Base Rate Case Filing

See the Form 10-K for discussion of the electric and gas base rate case filed in September 2018. In response to the City Council’s November 2019 resolution in the rate case, Entergy New Orleans made a compliance filing in December 2019 and also filed timely a petition for appeal and judicial review and for stay of or injunctive relief alleging that the resolution is unlawful in failing to produce just and reasonable rates. A hearing on the requested injunction was scheduled in Civil District Court for February 2020, but by joint motion of the City Council and Entergy New Orleans, the Civil District Court issued an order for a limited remand to the City Council to consider a potential agreement in principle/stipulation at its February 20, 2020 meeting. On February 17, 2020, Entergy New Orleans filed

with the City Council an agreement in principle between Entergy New Orleans and the City Council’s advisors. On February 20, 2020, the City Council voted to approve the proposed agreement in principle and issued a resolution modifying the required treatment of certain accumulated deferred income taxes. As a result of the agreement in principle, the total annual revenue requirement reduction will be approximately $45 million ($42 million electric, including $29 million in rider reductions; and $3 million gas). As a result, Entergy New Orleans fully implemented the new rates in April 2020. The merits of the appeal will be subject to a separate procedural schedule issued by the Civil District Court.

2020 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In April 2020, Entergy New Orleans filed a motion with the City Council to delay its formula rate plan filing until June 2020. In May 2020 the City Council issued an order extending the filing deadline for Entergy New Orleans’s formula rate plan filing to June 29, 2020.

Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Texas)

Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider

In March 2020, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect approximately $23.6 million annually, or $20.4 million in incremental annual DCRF revenue beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019.

Transmission Cost Recovery Factor (TCRF) Rider

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its TCRF rider. The new TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $19.4 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2019. In January 2020 the PUCT issued an order approving an unopposed settlement providing for recovery of the requested revenue requirement. Entergy Texas implemented the amended rider beginning with bills covering usage on and after January 23, 2020.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

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

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2018 the LPSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s March 2018 order affirming the ALJ’s initial decision in the consolidated proceedings. Entergy filed in May 2018 the bandwidth true-up payments and receipts for the 2011-2014 rate filings and the payments were made in May 2018. In April 2020 the FERC issued an order partially granting the LPSC’s rehearing request.  In the order the FERC reversed its prior finding and determined that the tax gain portion of the Waterford 3 financing accumulated deferred income tax should be included in the bandwidth calculation.  The order requires Entergy Services to redetermine bandwidth true-up payments and receipts for the 2010-2012 test years.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the FERC’s opportunity sales orders have been appealed to the D.C. Circuit by Entergy, the LPSC, and the APSC. In February 2020 all of the appeals were consolidated and in April 2020 the D.C. Circuit established a briefing schedule. Briefing will occur in May 2020 through September 2020.    

Also as discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC requesting approval of a special rider tariff to recover the costs of its opportunity sales payments from its retail customers over a 24-month period. In January 2020 the Attorney General and Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed testimony opposing the recovery by Entergy Arkansas of the opportunity sales payment but also claiming that certain components of the payment should be segregated and refunded to customers. In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony. Also in March 2020, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and the Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed a joint motion asking the APSC to issue a final decision based on the record in the proceeding and cancel the April 2020 evidentiary hearing. The Arkansas Attorney General did not oppose the request, which was granted by the APSC in March 2020. A final decision is expected in July 2020.

Complaints Against System Energy

Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2019, in a proceeding that did not involve Entergy, the FERC issued an order addressing the methodology for determining the return on equity applicable to transmission owners in MISO. Thereafter, the participants in the System Energy proceeding agreed to amend the procedural schedule to allow the participants to file supplemental testimony addressing the order in the MISO transmission owner proceeding (Opinion No. 569).

In February 2020 the LPSC, the MPSC and APSC, and the FERC trial staff filed supplemental testimony addressing Opinion No. 569 and how it would affect the return on equity evaluation for the two complaint periods concerning System Energy. For the first refund period, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569 methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.44%; the MPSC and APSC argue for an authorized return on equity of 8.41%; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 9.22%. For the second refund period and on a prospective basis, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569 methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.89%; the MPSC and APSC argue that an authorized return on equity of 8.01% may be appropriate; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 8.66%.

In April 2020, System Energy filed supplemental answering testimony addressing Opinion No. 569. System Energy argues that the Opinion No. 569 methodology is conceptually and analytically defective for purposes of establishing just and reasonable authorized return on equity determinations and proposes an alternative approach. As its primary recommendation, System Energy continues to support the return on equity determinations in its March 2019 testimony for the first refund period and its June 2019 testimony for the second refund period. Under the Opinion No. 569 methodology, System Energy calculates a “presumptively just and reasonable range” for the authorized return on equity for the first refund period of 8.57% to 9.52%, and for the second refund period of 8.28% to 9.11%. System Energy argues that these ranges are not just and reasonable results. Under its proposed alternative methodology, System Energy calculates an authorized return on equity of 10.26% for the first refund period, which also falls within the presumptively just and reasonable range calculated for the second refund period and prospectively.

The schedule was further revised in March 2020, and rebuttal testimony addressing Opinion No. 569 is due in June 2020; the hearing in the System Energy proceeding will commence in August 2020; and the initial decision will be due in December 2020.

Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. In February 2019 the presiding ALJ ruled that the hearing ordered by the FERC includes the issue of whether specific subcategories of accumulated deferred income tax should be included in, or excluded from, System Energy’s formula rate. In March 2019 the LPSC, MPSC, APSC, and City

Council filed direct testimony. The LPSC testimony sought refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income taxes associated with uncertain tax positions, and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest, as well as interest on those amounts.

In June 2019 System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should reject all claims for refunds.  Among other things, System Energy argued that claims for refunds of the costs of lease renewal payments and capital additions should be rejected because those costs were recovered consistent with the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate, System Energy was not over or double recovering any costs, and customers will save costs over the initial and renewal terms of the leases.  System Energy argued that claims for refunds associated with liabilities arising from uncertain tax positions should be rejected because the liabilities do not provide cost-free capital, the repayment timing of the liabilities is uncertain, and the outcome of the underlying tax positions is uncertain.  System Energy’s testimony also challenged the refund calculations supplied by the other parties.

In August 2019 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony seeking refunds for rate base reductions for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions. The FERC trial staff also argued that System Energy recovered $32 million more than it should have in depreciation expense for capital additions. In September 2019, System Energy filed cross-answering testimony disputing the FERC trial staff’s arguments for refunds, stating that the FERC trial staff’s position regarding depreciation rates for capital additions is not unreasonable, but explaining that any change in depreciation expense is only one element of a Unit Power Sales Agreement re-billing calculation. Adjustments to depreciation expense in any re-billing under the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate will also involve changes to accumulated depreciation, accumulated deferred income taxes, and other formula elements as needed. In October 2019 the LPSC filed rebuttal testimony increasing the amount of refunds sought for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions.  The LPSC now seeks approximately $512 million, plus interest, which is approximately $170 million through March 31, 2020.  The FERC trial staff also filed rebuttal testimony in which it seeks refunds of a similar amount as the LPSC for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions.  The LPSC testimony also argued that adjustments to depreciation rates should affect rate base on a prospective basis only.

A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019. In April 2020 the ALJ issued the initial decision. Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues. First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million. The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service. The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy. In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively. Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through March 31, 2020, is approximately $397 million, plus interest, which is approximately $96 million through March 31, 2020. The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward. Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections. If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $18 million, which includes interest through March 31, 2020.

The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. System Energy plans to file briefs on exceptions to the FERC, re-urging its positions and requesting the reversal of many of the findings in the ALJ’s initial decision, including the lease renewal and uncertain tax position issues. The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC. Briefs on exceptions from all parties are scheduled for June 2020, and briefs opposing

exceptions are scheduled for September 2020. The FERC will then review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision.

Entergy New Orleans [Member]

Rate and Regulatory Matters

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

Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities

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.

Regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

System Energy

In a filing made with the FERC in March 2018, Entergy proposed revisions to the Unit Power Sales Agreement, among other agreements, to reflect the effects of the Tax Act. In the filing System Energy proposed to return all of its unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to its customers by the end of 2018. In May 2018 the FERC accepted System Energy’s proposed tax revisions with an effective date of June 1, 2018, subject to refund and the outcome of settlement and hearing procedures.  Settlement discussions were terminated in April 2019, and the hearing was held in March 2020. The retail regulators of the Utility operating companies that are parties to the Unit Power Sales Agreement are challenging the treatment and amount of excess tax liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions related to nuclear decommissioning. The initial decision is due in July 2020.

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery

Entergy Arkansas

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01462 per kWh to $0.01052 per kWh. The redetermined rate became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2020 through the normal operation of the tariff.

Entergy Louisiana

In March 2020 the LPSC staff provided notice of an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2016 through 2019. Discovery has not yet commenced.

Entergy Texas

In September 2019, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period from April 2016 through March 2019. During the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas incurred approximately $1.6 billion in Texas jurisdictional eligible fuel and purchased power expenses, net of certain revenues credited to such expenses and other adjustments. Entergy Texas estimated an under-recovery balance of approximately $25.8 million, including interest, which Entergy Texas requested authority to carry over as the beginning balance for the subsequent reconciliation period beginning April 2019. In March 2020 an intervenor filed testimony proposing that the PUCT disallow: (1) $2 million in replacement power costs associated with generation outages during the reconciliation period; and (2) $24.4 million associated with the operation of the Spindletop natural gas storage facility during the reconciliation period.  In April 2020, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony refuting all points raised by the intervenor.  A hearing on the merits is currently set for May 2020.

Retail Rate Proceedings

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies.  The following are updates to that discussion.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)

Retail Rates - Electric

2018 Formula Rate Plan Filing

Commercial operation at Lake Charles Power Station commenced in March 2020. In March 2020, Entergy Louisiana filed an update to its 2018 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the estimated first-year revenue requirement of $108 million associated with the Lake Charles Power Station. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of April 2020.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Formula Rate Plan Filing

In March 2020, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2020 test year filing and 2019 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2020 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2020 test year filing shows a $24.6 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.51% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 look-back filing compares actual 2019 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $7.3 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In accordance with the MPSC-approved revisions to the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2019 retail revenues, effective with the April 2020 billing cycle, subject to refund, pending a final MPSC order. A final order is expected in the second quarter 2020, with the resulting final rates, including amounts above the 2% cap of 2019 retail revenues, effective July 2020.

Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans)

Energy Efficiency

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2019, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking approval of an implementation plan for the Energy Smart energy efficiency program from April 2020 through December 2022. Entergy New Orleans proposed to recover the costs of the program through mechanisms previously approved by the City Council or through the energy efficiency cost recovery rider, which was approved in the 2018 combined rate case resolution. In February 2020 the City Council approved Entergy New Orleans’s application.

2018 Base Rate Case Filing

See the Form 10-K for discussion of the electric and gas base rate case filed in September 2018. In response to the City Council’s November 2019 resolution in the rate case, Entergy New Orleans made a compliance filing in December 2019 and also filed timely a petition for appeal and judicial review and for stay of or injunctive relief alleging that the resolution is unlawful in failing to produce just and reasonable rates. A hearing on the requested injunction was scheduled in Civil District Court for February 2020, but by joint motion of the City Council and Entergy New Orleans, the Civil District Court issued an order for a limited remand to the City Council to consider a potential agreement in principle/stipulation at its February 20, 2020 meeting. On February 17, 2020, Entergy New Orleans filed

with the City Council an agreement in principle between Entergy New Orleans and the City Council’s advisors. On February 20, 2020, the City Council voted to approve the proposed agreement in principle and issued a resolution modifying the required treatment of certain accumulated deferred income taxes. As a result of the agreement in principle, the total annual revenue requirement reduction will be approximately $45 million ($42 million electric, including $29 million in rider reductions; and $3 million gas). As a result, Entergy New Orleans fully implemented the new rates in April 2020. The merits of the appeal will be subject to a separate procedural schedule issued by the Civil District Court.

2020 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In April 2020, Entergy New Orleans filed a motion with the City Council to delay its formula rate plan filing until June 2020. In May 2020 the City Council issued an order extending the filing deadline for Entergy New Orleans’s formula rate plan filing to June 29, 2020.

Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Texas)

Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider

In March 2020, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect approximately $23.6 million annually, or $20.4 million in incremental annual DCRF revenue beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019.

Transmission Cost Recovery Factor (TCRF) Rider

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its TCRF rider. The new TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $19.4 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2019. In January 2020 the PUCT issued an order approving an unopposed settlement providing for recovery of the requested revenue requirement. Entergy Texas implemented the amended rider beginning with bills covering usage on and after January 23, 2020.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

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

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2018 the LPSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s March 2018 order affirming the ALJ’s initial decision in the consolidated proceedings. Entergy filed in May 2018 the bandwidth true-up payments and receipts for the 2011-2014 rate filings and the payments were made in May 2018. In April 2020 the FERC issued an order partially granting the LPSC’s rehearing request.  In the order the FERC reversed its prior finding and determined that the tax gain portion of the Waterford 3 financing accumulated deferred income tax should be included in the bandwidth calculation.  The order requires Entergy Services to redetermine bandwidth true-up payments and receipts for the 2010-2012 test years.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the FERC’s opportunity sales orders have been appealed to the D.C. Circuit by Entergy, the LPSC, and the APSC. In February 2020 all of the appeals were consolidated and in April 2020 the D.C. Circuit established a briefing schedule. Briefing will occur in May 2020 through September 2020.    

Also as discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC requesting approval of a special rider tariff to recover the costs of its opportunity sales payments from its retail customers over a 24-month period. In January 2020 the Attorney General and Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed testimony opposing the recovery by Entergy Arkansas of the opportunity sales payment but also claiming that certain components of the payment should be segregated and refunded to customers. In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony. Also in March 2020, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and the Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed a joint motion asking the APSC to issue a final decision based on the record in the proceeding and cancel the April 2020 evidentiary hearing. The Arkansas Attorney General did not oppose the request, which was granted by the APSC in March 2020. A final decision is expected in July 2020.

Complaints Against System Energy

Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2019, in a proceeding that did not involve Entergy, the FERC issued an order addressing the methodology for determining the return on equity applicable to transmission owners in MISO. Thereafter, the participants in the System Energy proceeding agreed to amend the procedural schedule to allow the participants to file supplemental testimony addressing the order in the MISO transmission owner proceeding (Opinion No. 569).

In February 2020 the LPSC, the MPSC and APSC, and the FERC trial staff filed supplemental testimony addressing Opinion No. 569 and how it would affect the return on equity evaluation for the two complaint periods concerning System Energy. For the first refund period, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569 methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.44%; the MPSC and APSC argue for an authorized return on equity of 8.41%; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 9.22%. For the second refund period and on a prospective basis, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569 methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.89%; the MPSC and APSC argue that an authorized return on equity of 8.01% may be appropriate; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 8.66%.

In April 2020, System Energy filed supplemental answering testimony addressing Opinion No. 569. System Energy argues that the Opinion No. 569 methodology is conceptually and analytically defective for purposes of establishing just and reasonable authorized return on equity determinations and proposes an alternative approach. As its primary recommendation, System Energy continues to support the return on equity determinations in its March 2019 testimony for the first refund period and its June 2019 testimony for the second refund period. Under the Opinion No. 569 methodology, System Energy calculates a “presumptively just and reasonable range” for the authorized return on equity for the first refund period of 8.57% to 9.52%, and for the second refund period of 8.28% to 9.11%. System Energy argues that these ranges are not just and reasonable results. Under its proposed alternative methodology, System Energy calculates an authorized return on equity of 10.26% for the first refund period, which also falls within the presumptively just and reasonable range calculated for the second refund period and prospectively.

The schedule was further revised in March 2020, and rebuttal testimony addressing Opinion No. 569 is due in June 2020; the hearing in the System Energy proceeding will commence in August 2020; and the initial decision will be due in December 2020.

Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. In February 2019 the presiding ALJ ruled that the hearing ordered by the FERC includes the issue of whether specific subcategories of accumulated deferred income tax should be included in, or excluded from, System Energy’s formula rate. In March 2019 the LPSC, MPSC, APSC, and City

Council filed direct testimony. The LPSC testimony sought refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income taxes associated with uncertain tax positions, and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest, as well as interest on those amounts.

In June 2019 System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should reject all claims for refunds.  Among other things, System Energy argued that claims for refunds of the costs of lease renewal payments and capital additions should be rejected because those costs were recovered consistent with the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate, System Energy was not over or double recovering any costs, and customers will save costs over the initial and renewal terms of the leases.  System Energy argued that claims for refunds associated with liabilities arising from uncertain tax positions should be rejected because the liabilities do not provide cost-free capital, the repayment timing of the liabilities is uncertain, and the outcome of the underlying tax positions is uncertain.  System Energy’s testimony also challenged the refund calculations supplied by the other parties.

In August 2019 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony seeking refunds for rate base reductions for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions. The FERC trial staff also argued that System Energy recovered $32 million more than it should have in depreciation expense for capital additions. In September 2019, System Energy filed cross-answering testimony disputing the FERC trial staff’s arguments for refunds, stating that the FERC trial staff’s position regarding depreciation rates for capital additions is not unreasonable, but explaining that any change in depreciation expense is only one element of a Unit Power Sales Agreement re-billing calculation. Adjustments to depreciation expense in any re-billing under the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate will also involve changes to accumulated depreciation, accumulated deferred income taxes, and other formula elements as needed. In October 2019 the LPSC filed rebuttal testimony increasing the amount of refunds sought for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions.  The LPSC now seeks approximately $512 million, plus interest, which is approximately $170 million through March 31, 2020.  The FERC trial staff also filed rebuttal testimony in which it seeks refunds of a similar amount as the LPSC for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions.  The LPSC testimony also argued that adjustments to depreciation rates should affect rate base on a prospective basis only.

A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019. In April 2020 the ALJ issued the initial decision. Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues. First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million. The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service. The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy. In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively. Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through March 31, 2020, is approximately $397 million, plus interest, which is approximately $96 million through March 31, 2020. The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward. Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections. If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $18 million, which includes interest through March 31, 2020.

The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. System Energy plans to file briefs on exceptions to the FERC, re-urging its positions and requesting the reversal of many of the findings in the ALJ’s initial decision, including the lease renewal and uncertain tax position issues. The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC. Briefs on exceptions from all parties are scheduled for June 2020, and briefs opposing

exceptions are scheduled for September 2020. The FERC will then review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision.

Entergy Texas [Member]

Rate and Regulatory Matters

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

Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities

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.

Regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

System Energy

In a filing made with the FERC in March 2018, Entergy proposed revisions to the Unit Power Sales Agreement, among other agreements, to reflect the effects of the Tax Act. In the filing System Energy proposed to return all of its unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to its customers by the end of 2018. In May 2018 the FERC accepted System Energy’s proposed tax revisions with an effective date of June 1, 2018, subject to refund and the outcome of settlement and hearing procedures.  Settlement discussions were terminated in April 2019, and the hearing was held in March 2020. The retail regulators of the Utility operating companies that are parties to the Unit Power Sales Agreement are challenging the treatment and amount of excess tax liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions related to nuclear decommissioning. The initial decision is due in July 2020.

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery

Entergy Arkansas

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01462 per kWh to $0.01052 per kWh. The redetermined rate became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2020 through the normal operation of the tariff.

Entergy Louisiana

In March 2020 the LPSC staff provided notice of an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2016 through 2019. Discovery has not yet commenced.

Entergy Texas

In September 2019, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period from April 2016 through March 2019. During the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas incurred approximately $1.6 billion in Texas jurisdictional eligible fuel and purchased power expenses, net of certain revenues credited to such expenses and other adjustments. Entergy Texas estimated an under-recovery balance of approximately $25.8 million, including interest, which Entergy Texas requested authority to carry over as the beginning balance for the subsequent reconciliation period beginning April 2019. In March 2020 an intervenor filed testimony proposing that the PUCT disallow: (1) $2 million in replacement power costs associated with generation outages during the reconciliation period; and (2) $24.4 million associated with the operation of the Spindletop natural gas storage facility during the reconciliation period.  In April 2020, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony refuting all points raised by the intervenor.  A hearing on the merits is currently set for May 2020.

Retail Rate Proceedings

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies.  The following are updates to that discussion.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)

Retail Rates - Electric

2018 Formula Rate Plan Filing

Commercial operation at Lake Charles Power Station commenced in March 2020. In March 2020, Entergy Louisiana filed an update to its 2018 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the estimated first-year revenue requirement of $108 million associated with the Lake Charles Power Station. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of April 2020.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Formula Rate Plan Filing

In March 2020, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2020 test year filing and 2019 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2020 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2020 test year filing shows a $24.6 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.51% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 look-back filing compares actual 2019 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $7.3 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In accordance with the MPSC-approved revisions to the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2019 retail revenues, effective with the April 2020 billing cycle, subject to refund, pending a final MPSC order. A final order is expected in the second quarter 2020, with the resulting final rates, including amounts above the 2% cap of 2019 retail revenues, effective July 2020.

Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans)

Energy Efficiency

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2019, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking approval of an implementation plan for the Energy Smart energy efficiency program from April 2020 through December 2022. Entergy New Orleans proposed to recover the costs of the program through mechanisms previously approved by the City Council or through the energy efficiency cost recovery rider, which was approved in the 2018 combined rate case resolution. In February 2020 the City Council approved Entergy New Orleans’s application.

2018 Base Rate Case Filing

See the Form 10-K for discussion of the electric and gas base rate case filed in September 2018. In response to the City Council’s November 2019 resolution in the rate case, Entergy New Orleans made a compliance filing in December 2019 and also filed timely a petition for appeal and judicial review and for stay of or injunctive relief alleging that the resolution is unlawful in failing to produce just and reasonable rates. A hearing on the requested injunction was scheduled in Civil District Court for February 2020, but by joint motion of the City Council and Entergy New Orleans, the Civil District Court issued an order for a limited remand to the City Council to consider a potential agreement in principle/stipulation at its February 20, 2020 meeting. On February 17, 2020, Entergy New Orleans filed

with the City Council an agreement in principle between Entergy New Orleans and the City Council’s advisors. On February 20, 2020, the City Council voted to approve the proposed agreement in principle and issued a resolution modifying the required treatment of certain accumulated deferred income taxes. As a result of the agreement in principle, the total annual revenue requirement reduction will be approximately $45 million ($42 million electric, including $29 million in rider reductions; and $3 million gas). As a result, Entergy New Orleans fully implemented the new rates in April 2020. The merits of the appeal will be subject to a separate procedural schedule issued by the Civil District Court.

2020 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In April 2020, Entergy New Orleans filed a motion with the City Council to delay its formula rate plan filing until June 2020. In May 2020 the City Council issued an order extending the filing deadline for Entergy New Orleans’s formula rate plan filing to June 29, 2020.

Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Texas)

Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider

In March 2020, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect approximately $23.6 million annually, or $20.4 million in incremental annual DCRF revenue beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019.

Transmission Cost Recovery Factor (TCRF) Rider

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its TCRF rider. The new TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $19.4 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2019. In January 2020 the PUCT issued an order approving an unopposed settlement providing for recovery of the requested revenue requirement. Entergy Texas implemented the amended rider beginning with bills covering usage on and after January 23, 2020.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

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

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2018 the LPSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s March 2018 order affirming the ALJ’s initial decision in the consolidated proceedings. Entergy filed in May 2018 the bandwidth true-up payments and receipts for the 2011-2014 rate filings and the payments were made in May 2018. In April 2020 the FERC issued an order partially granting the LPSC’s rehearing request.  In the order the FERC reversed its prior finding and determined that the tax gain portion of the Waterford 3 financing accumulated deferred income tax should be included in the bandwidth calculation.  The order requires Entergy Services to redetermine bandwidth true-up payments and receipts for the 2010-2012 test years.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the FERC’s opportunity sales orders have been appealed to the D.C. Circuit by Entergy, the LPSC, and the APSC. In February 2020 all of the appeals were consolidated and in April 2020 the D.C. Circuit established a briefing schedule. Briefing will occur in May 2020 through September 2020.    

Also as discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC requesting approval of a special rider tariff to recover the costs of its opportunity sales payments from its retail customers over a 24-month period. In January 2020 the Attorney General and Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed testimony opposing the recovery by Entergy Arkansas of the opportunity sales payment but also claiming that certain components of the payment should be segregated and refunded to customers. In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony. Also in March 2020, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and the Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed a joint motion asking the APSC to issue a final decision based on the record in the proceeding and cancel the April 2020 evidentiary hearing. The Arkansas Attorney General did not oppose the request, which was granted by the APSC in March 2020. A final decision is expected in July 2020.

Complaints Against System Energy

Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2019, in a proceeding that did not involve Entergy, the FERC issued an order addressing the methodology for determining the return on equity applicable to transmission owners in MISO. Thereafter, the participants in the System Energy proceeding agreed to amend the procedural schedule to allow the participants to file supplemental testimony addressing the order in the MISO transmission owner proceeding (Opinion No. 569).

In February 2020 the LPSC, the MPSC and APSC, and the FERC trial staff filed supplemental testimony addressing Opinion No. 569 and how it would affect the return on equity evaluation for the two complaint periods concerning System Energy. For the first refund period, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569 methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.44%; the MPSC and APSC argue for an authorized return on equity of 8.41%; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 9.22%. For the second refund period and on a prospective basis, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569 methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.89%; the MPSC and APSC argue that an authorized return on equity of 8.01% may be appropriate; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 8.66%.

In April 2020, System Energy filed supplemental answering testimony addressing Opinion No. 569. System Energy argues that the Opinion No. 569 methodology is conceptually and analytically defective for purposes of establishing just and reasonable authorized return on equity determinations and proposes an alternative approach. As its primary recommendation, System Energy continues to support the return on equity determinations in its March 2019 testimony for the first refund period and its June 2019 testimony for the second refund period. Under the Opinion No. 569 methodology, System Energy calculates a “presumptively just and reasonable range” for the authorized return on equity for the first refund period of 8.57% to 9.52%, and for the second refund period of 8.28% to 9.11%. System Energy argues that these ranges are not just and reasonable results. Under its proposed alternative methodology, System Energy calculates an authorized return on equity of 10.26% for the first refund period, which also falls within the presumptively just and reasonable range calculated for the second refund period and prospectively.

The schedule was further revised in March 2020, and rebuttal testimony addressing Opinion No. 569 is due in June 2020; the hearing in the System Energy proceeding will commence in August 2020; and the initial decision will be due in December 2020.

Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. In February 2019 the presiding ALJ ruled that the hearing ordered by the FERC includes the issue of whether specific subcategories of accumulated deferred income tax should be included in, or excluded from, System Energy’s formula rate. In March 2019 the LPSC, MPSC, APSC, and City

Council filed direct testimony. The LPSC testimony sought refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income taxes associated with uncertain tax positions, and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest, as well as interest on those amounts.

In June 2019 System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should reject all claims for refunds.  Among other things, System Energy argued that claims for refunds of the costs of lease renewal payments and capital additions should be rejected because those costs were recovered consistent with the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate, System Energy was not over or double recovering any costs, and customers will save costs over the initial and renewal terms of the leases.  System Energy argued that claims for refunds associated with liabilities arising from uncertain tax positions should be rejected because the liabilities do not provide cost-free capital, the repayment timing of the liabilities is uncertain, and the outcome of the underlying tax positions is uncertain.  System Energy’s testimony also challenged the refund calculations supplied by the other parties.

In August 2019 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony seeking refunds for rate base reductions for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions. The FERC trial staff also argued that System Energy recovered $32 million more than it should have in depreciation expense for capital additions. In September 2019, System Energy filed cross-answering testimony disputing the FERC trial staff’s arguments for refunds, stating that the FERC trial staff’s position regarding depreciation rates for capital additions is not unreasonable, but explaining that any change in depreciation expense is only one element of a Unit Power Sales Agreement re-billing calculation. Adjustments to depreciation expense in any re-billing under the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate will also involve changes to accumulated depreciation, accumulated deferred income taxes, and other formula elements as needed. In October 2019 the LPSC filed rebuttal testimony increasing the amount of refunds sought for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions.  The LPSC now seeks approximately $512 million, plus interest, which is approximately $170 million through March 31, 2020.  The FERC trial staff also filed rebuttal testimony in which it seeks refunds of a similar amount as the LPSC for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions.  The LPSC testimony also argued that adjustments to depreciation rates should affect rate base on a prospective basis only.

A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019. In April 2020 the ALJ issued the initial decision. Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues. First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million. The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service. The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy. In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively. Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through March 31, 2020, is approximately $397 million, plus interest, which is approximately $96 million through March 31, 2020. The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward. Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections. If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $18 million, which includes interest through March 31, 2020.

The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. System Energy plans to file briefs on exceptions to the FERC, re-urging its positions and requesting the reversal of many of the findings in the ALJ’s initial decision, including the lease renewal and uncertain tax position issues. The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC. Briefs on exceptions from all parties are scheduled for June 2020, and briefs opposing

exceptions are scheduled for September 2020. The FERC will then review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision.

System Energy [Member]

Rate and Regulatory Matters

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

Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities

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.

Regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

System Energy

In a filing made with the FERC in March 2018, Entergy proposed revisions to the Unit Power Sales Agreement, among other agreements, to reflect the effects of the Tax Act. In the filing System Energy proposed to return all of its unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to its customers by the end of 2018. In May 2018 the FERC accepted System Energy’s proposed tax revisions with an effective date of June 1, 2018, subject to refund and the outcome of settlement and hearing procedures.  Settlement discussions were terminated in April 2019, and the hearing was held in March 2020. The retail regulators of the Utility operating companies that are parties to the Unit Power Sales Agreement are challenging the treatment and amount of excess tax liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions related to nuclear decommissioning. The initial decision is due in July 2020.

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery

Entergy Arkansas

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01462 per kWh to $0.01052 per kWh. The redetermined rate became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2020 through the normal operation of the tariff.

Entergy Louisiana

In March 2020 the LPSC staff provided notice of an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2016 through 2019. Discovery has not yet commenced.

Entergy Texas

In September 2019, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period from April 2016 through March 2019. During the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas incurred approximately $1.6 billion in Texas jurisdictional eligible fuel and purchased power expenses, net of certain revenues credited to such expenses and other adjustments. Entergy Texas estimated an under-recovery balance of approximately $25.8 million, including interest, which Entergy Texas requested authority to carry over as the beginning balance for the subsequent reconciliation period beginning April 2019. In March 2020 an intervenor filed testimony proposing that the PUCT disallow: (1) $2 million in replacement power costs associated with generation outages during the reconciliation period; and (2) $24.4 million associated with the operation of the Spindletop natural gas storage facility during the reconciliation period.  In April 2020, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony refuting all points raised by the intervenor.  A hearing on the merits is currently set for May 2020.

Retail Rate Proceedings

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies.  The following are updates to that discussion.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)

Retail Rates - Electric

2018 Formula Rate Plan Filing

Commercial operation at Lake Charles Power Station commenced in March 2020. In March 2020, Entergy Louisiana filed an update to its 2018 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the estimated first-year revenue requirement of $108 million associated with the Lake Charles Power Station. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of April 2020.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Formula Rate Plan Filing

In March 2020, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2020 test year filing and 2019 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2020 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2020 test year filing shows a $24.6 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.51% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 look-back filing compares actual 2019 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $7.3 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In accordance with the MPSC-approved revisions to the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2019 retail revenues, effective with the April 2020 billing cycle, subject to refund, pending a final MPSC order. A final order is expected in the second quarter 2020, with the resulting final rates, including amounts above the 2% cap of 2019 retail revenues, effective July 2020.

Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans)

Energy Efficiency

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2019, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking approval of an implementation plan for the Energy Smart energy efficiency program from April 2020 through December 2022. Entergy New Orleans proposed to recover the costs of the program through mechanisms previously approved by the City Council or through the energy efficiency cost recovery rider, which was approved in the 2018 combined rate case resolution. In February 2020 the City Council approved Entergy New Orleans’s application.

2018 Base Rate Case Filing

See the Form 10-K for discussion of the electric and gas base rate case filed in September 2018. In response to the City Council’s November 2019 resolution in the rate case, Entergy New Orleans made a compliance filing in December 2019 and also filed timely a petition for appeal and judicial review and for stay of or injunctive relief alleging that the resolution is unlawful in failing to produce just and reasonable rates. A hearing on the requested injunction was scheduled in Civil District Court for February 2020, but by joint motion of the City Council and Entergy New Orleans, the Civil District Court issued an order for a limited remand to the City Council to consider a potential agreement in principle/stipulation at its February 20, 2020 meeting. On February 17, 2020, Entergy New Orleans filed

with the City Council an agreement in principle between Entergy New Orleans and the City Council’s advisors. On February 20, 2020, the City Council voted to approve the proposed agreement in principle and issued a resolution modifying the required treatment of certain accumulated deferred income taxes. As a result of the agreement in principle, the total annual revenue requirement reduction will be approximately $45 million ($42 million electric, including $29 million in rider reductions; and $3 million gas). As a result, Entergy New Orleans fully implemented the new rates in April 2020. The merits of the appeal will be subject to a separate procedural schedule issued by the Civil District Court.

2020 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In April 2020, Entergy New Orleans filed a motion with the City Council to delay its formula rate plan filing until June 2020. In May 2020 the City Council issued an order extending the filing deadline for Entergy New Orleans’s formula rate plan filing to June 29, 2020.

Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Texas)

Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider

In March 2020, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect approximately $23.6 million annually, or $20.4 million in incremental annual DCRF revenue beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019.

Transmission Cost Recovery Factor (TCRF) Rider

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its TCRF rider. The new TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $19.4 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2019. In January 2020 the PUCT issued an order approving an unopposed settlement providing for recovery of the requested revenue requirement. Entergy Texas implemented the amended rider beginning with bills covering usage on and after January 23, 2020.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

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

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2018 the LPSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s March 2018 order affirming the ALJ’s initial decision in the consolidated proceedings. Entergy filed in May 2018 the bandwidth true-up payments and receipts for the 2011-2014 rate filings and the payments were made in May 2018. In April 2020 the FERC issued an order partially granting the LPSC’s rehearing request.  In the order the FERC reversed its prior finding and determined that the tax gain portion of the Waterford 3 financing accumulated deferred income tax should be included in the bandwidth calculation.  The order requires Entergy Services to redetermine bandwidth true-up payments and receipts for the 2010-2012 test years.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the FERC’s opportunity sales orders have been appealed to the D.C. Circuit by Entergy, the LPSC, and the APSC. In February 2020 all of the appeals were consolidated and in April 2020 the D.C. Circuit established a briefing schedule. Briefing will occur in May 2020 through September 2020.    

Also as discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC requesting approval of a special rider tariff to recover the costs of its opportunity sales payments from its retail customers over a 24-month period. In January 2020 the Attorney General and Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed testimony opposing the recovery by Entergy Arkansas of the opportunity sales payment but also claiming that certain components of the payment should be segregated and refunded to customers. In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony. Also in March 2020, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and the Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed a joint motion asking the APSC to issue a final decision based on the record in the proceeding and cancel the April 2020 evidentiary hearing. The Arkansas Attorney General did not oppose the request, which was granted by the APSC in March 2020. A final decision is expected in July 2020.

Complaints Against System Energy

Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2019, in a proceeding that did not involve Entergy, the FERC issued an order addressing the methodology for determining the return on equity applicable to transmission owners in MISO. Thereafter, the participants in the System Energy proceeding agreed to amend the procedural schedule to allow the participants to file supplemental testimony addressing the order in the MISO transmission owner proceeding (Opinion No. 569).

In February 2020 the LPSC, the MPSC and APSC, and the FERC trial staff filed supplemental testimony addressing Opinion No. 569 and how it would affect the return on equity evaluation for the two complaint periods concerning System Energy. For the first refund period, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569 methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.44%; the MPSC and APSC argue for an authorized return on equity of 8.41%; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 9.22%. For the second refund period and on a prospective basis, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569 methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.89%; the MPSC and APSC argue that an authorized return on equity of 8.01% may be appropriate; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 8.66%.

In April 2020, System Energy filed supplemental answering testimony addressing Opinion No. 569. System Energy argues that the Opinion No. 569 methodology is conceptually and analytically defective for purposes of establishing just and reasonable authorized return on equity determinations and proposes an alternative approach. As its primary recommendation, System Energy continues to support the return on equity determinations in its March 2019 testimony for the first refund period and its June 2019 testimony for the second refund period. Under the Opinion No. 569 methodology, System Energy calculates a “presumptively just and reasonable range” for the authorized return on equity for the first refund period of 8.57% to 9.52%, and for the second refund period of 8.28% to 9.11%. System Energy argues that these ranges are not just and reasonable results. Under its proposed alternative methodology, System Energy calculates an authorized return on equity of 10.26% for the first refund period, which also falls within the presumptively just and reasonable range calculated for the second refund period and prospectively.

The schedule was further revised in March 2020, and rebuttal testimony addressing Opinion No. 569 is due in June 2020; the hearing in the System Energy proceeding will commence in August 2020; and the initial decision will be due in December 2020.

Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. In February 2019 the presiding ALJ ruled that the hearing ordered by the FERC includes the issue of whether specific subcategories of accumulated deferred income tax should be included in, or excluded from, System Energy’s formula rate. In March 2019 the LPSC, MPSC, APSC, and City

Council filed direct testimony. The LPSC testimony sought refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income taxes associated with uncertain tax positions, and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest, as well as interest on those amounts.

In June 2019 System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should reject all claims for refunds.  Among other things, System Energy argued that claims for refunds of the costs of lease renewal payments and capital additions should be rejected because those costs were recovered consistent with the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate, System Energy was not over or double recovering any costs, and customers will save costs over the initial and renewal terms of the leases.  System Energy argued that claims for refunds associated with liabilities arising from uncertain tax positions should be rejected because the liabilities do not provide cost-free capital, the repayment timing of the liabilities is uncertain, and the outcome of the underlying tax positions is uncertain.  System Energy’s testimony also challenged the refund calculations supplied by the other parties.

In August 2019 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony seeking refunds for rate base reductions for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions. The FERC trial staff also argued that System Energy recovered $32 million more than it should have in depreciation expense for capital additions. In September 2019, System Energy filed cross-answering testimony disputing the FERC trial staff’s arguments for refunds, stating that the FERC trial staff’s position regarding depreciation rates for capital additions is not unreasonable, but explaining that any change in depreciation expense is only one element of a Unit Power Sales Agreement re-billing calculation. Adjustments to depreciation expense in any re-billing under the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate will also involve changes to accumulated depreciation, accumulated deferred income taxes, and other formula elements as needed. In October 2019 the LPSC filed rebuttal testimony increasing the amount of refunds sought for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions.  The LPSC now seeks approximately $512 million, plus interest, which is approximately $170 million through March 31, 2020.  The FERC trial staff also filed rebuttal testimony in which it seeks refunds of a similar amount as the LPSC for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions.  The LPSC testimony also argued that adjustments to depreciation rates should affect rate base on a prospective basis only.

A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019. In April 2020 the ALJ issued the initial decision. Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues. First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million. The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service. The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy. In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively. Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through March 31, 2020, is approximately $397 million, plus interest, which is approximately $96 million through March 31, 2020. The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward. Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections. If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $18 million, which includes interest through March 31, 2020.

The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. System Energy plans to file briefs on exceptions to the FERC, re-urging its positions and requesting the reversal of many of the findings in the ALJ’s initial decision, including the lease renewal and uncertain tax position issues. The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC. Briefs on exceptions from all parties are scheduled for June 2020, and briefs opposing

exceptions are scheduled for September 2020. The FERC will then review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision.