1.0.0.3 false RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS false 1 $ false false u000 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 u001 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 u002 Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 2 RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS 0 etr_RateAndRegulatoryMatters etr false na duration string No definition available. false false false false false true false false false 1 false false 0 0 false false No definition available. false 3 RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS 1 us-gaap_PublicUtilitiesDisclosureTextBlock us-gaap true na duration string No definition available. false false false false false false false false false 1 false false 0 0 <div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">NOTE 2.  RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Regulatory Assets</font></font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_0" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries.  Following are updates to that discussion.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Fuel and purchased power cost recovery</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_1" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding fuel proceedings involving the Utility operating companies.  Following are updates to that information.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Entergy Arkansas</font></font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Energy Cost Recovery Rider</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_2" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>In March 2009, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its annual energy cost rate for the period April 2009 through March 2010.  The filed energy cost rate decreased from $0.02456/kWh to $0.01552/kWh.  The decrease was caused by the following: 1) all three of the nuclear power plants from which Entergy Arkansas obtains power, ANO 1 and 2 and Grand Gulf, had refueling outages in 2008, and the previous energy cost rate had been adjusted to account for the replacement power costs that would be incurred while these units were down; 2) Entergy Arkansas has a deferred fuel cost liability from over-recovered fuel costs at December 31, 2008, as compared to a deferred fuel cost asset from under-recovered fuel costs at December 31, 2007; offset by 3) an increase in the fuel and purchased power prices included in the calculation.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_3" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>In August 2009, as provided for by its energy cost recovery rider, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC an interim revision to its energy cost rate.  The revised energy cost rate is a decrease from $0.01552/kWh to $0.01206/kWh.  The decrease was caused by a decrease in natural gas and purchased power prices from the levels used in setting the rate in March 2009.  The interim revised energy cost rate went into effect for the first billing cycle of September 2009.  In its order approving the new rate, the APSC ordered Entergy Arkansas to show cause why the rate should not be further reduced.  In its September 14, 2009 response, Entergy Arkansas explained that it used the same methodology it had used in previous interim revisions, which is based on estimating what the rate would be in the next annual update based on the information known at the time.  There has been no further activity in this proceeding.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Entergy Mississippi</font></font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_4" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>In August 2009 the MPSC retained an independent audit firm to audit Entergy Mississippi's fuel adjustment clause submittals for the period October 2007 through September 2009.  The audit report is due to the MPSC by December 15, 2009.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Entergy Texas</font></font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_5" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>In January 2008, Entergy Texas made a compliance filing with the PUCT describing how its 2007 Rough Production Cost Equalization receipts under the System Agreement were allocated between Entergy Gulf States, Inc.'s Texas and Louisiana jurisdictions.  A hearing was held at the end of July 2008, and in October 2008 the ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending an additional $18.6 million allocation to Texas retail customers.  The PUCT adopted the ALJ's proposal for decision in December 2008.  Because the PUCT allocation to Texas retail customers is inconsistent with the LPSC allocation to Louisiana retail customers, the PUCT's decision would result in trapped costs between the Texas and Louisiana jurisdictions with no mechanism for recovery.  The PUCT denied Entergy Texas' motion for rehearing and Entergy Texas commenced proceedings in both state and federal district courts seeking to reverse the PUCT's decision.  On May 12, 2009, certain defendants, in their official capacities as Commissioners of the PUCT, filed a motion to dismiss Entergy Texas' pending complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.  The federal proceeding, including a ruling on the motion to dismiss, has been abated pending further action by the FERC in the proceeding discussed below.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"> </div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"> </div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"> <div id="PGBRK_6" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"> <div id="FTR_7"> <div id="GLFTR_8" style="WIDTH: 100%" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div> </div> <div id="PN_9" style="PAGE-BREAK-AFTER: always"> <div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">36</font></div> <div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"> <hr style="COLOR: black" noshade="noshade" size="2"/> </div> </div> <div id="HDR_10"> <div id="GLHDR_11" style="WIDTH: 100%" align="right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div> <div style="WIDTH: 100%" align="left"> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -1.8pt; TEXT-ALIGN: right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -1.8pt; TEXT-ALIGN: right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Notes to Financial Statements</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> </div> </div> </div><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_12" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>Entergy Texas also filed with the FERC a proposed amendment to the System Agreement bandwidth formula to specifically calculate the payments to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Texas of Entergy Gulf States, Inc.'s rough production cost equalization receipts for 2007.  On May 8, 2009, the FERC issued an order rejecting the proposed amendment, stating, among other things, that the FERC does not have jurisdiction over the allocation of an individual utility's receipts/payments among or between its retail jurisdictions and that this was a matter for the courts to review in the pending proceedings noted above.  Because of the FERC's order, Entergy Texas recorded the effects of the PUCT's allocation of the additional $18.6 million to retail customers in the second quarter 2009.  On an after-tax basis, the charge to earnings was approximately $13.0 million (including interest).  Entergy requested rehearing of the FERC's order, and on July 8, 2009, the FERC granted the request for rehearing for the limited purpose of affording more time for consideration of Entergy's request.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_13" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>In May 2009, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to refund $46.1 million, including interest, of fuel cost recovery over-collections through February 2009.  Entergy Texas requested that the proposed refund be made over a four-month period beginning June 2009.  Pursuant to a stipulation among the various parties, in June 2009 the PUCT issued an order approving a refund of $59.2 million, including interest, of fuel cost recovery overcollections through March 2009.  The refund was made over a three-month period beginning July 2009.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_14" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>In September 2009, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request for a good cause exception to implement a power cost recovery factor to collect approximately $26 million annually associated with a new purchased power contract with Entergy Arkansas that takes effect January 1, 2010.  Entergy Texas proposes that the power cost recovery factor be approved beginning January 2010 and remain in place until the contract expires or new rates that include the cost of the contract are set after a general rate case, whichever is earlier.  This matter is pending before the PUCT, and a procedural schedule has not been set.  The ALJ suspended the effective date of the factor until March 22, 2010.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_15" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>In October 2009, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to refund approximately $71 million, including interest, of fuel cost recovery over-collections through September 2009.  Entergy Texas requested that the proposed refund be made over a six-month period beginning January 2010.  The matter is pending before the PUCT, and a procedural schedule has not been set.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Storm Cost Recovery Filings</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Entergy Arkansas Storm Reserve Accounting</font></font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_16" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>The APSC's June 2007 order in Entergy Arkansas' base rate proceeding, which is discussed in the Form 10-K, eliminated storm reserve accounting for Entergy Arkansas.  In March 2009 a law was enacted in Arkansas that requires the APSC to permit storm reserve accounting for utilities that request it.  Entergy Arkansas filed its request with the APSC, and has reinstated storm reserve accounting effective January 1, 2009.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Entergy Arkansas January 2009 Ice Storm</font></font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_17" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>In January 2009 a severe ice storm caused significant damage to Entergy Arkansas' transmission and distribution lines, equipment, poles, and other facilities.  The current cost estimate for the damage caused by the ice storm is in the lower end of the range of approximately $120 million to $140 million, of which approximately $65 million to $80 million is estimated to be operating and maintenance type costs and the remainder is estimated to be capital investment.  On January 30, 2009, the APSC issued an order inviting and encouraging electric public utilities to file specific proposals for the recovery of extraordinary storm restoration expenses associated with the ice storm.  On February 16, 2009, Entergy Arkansas filed a request with the APSC for an accounting order authorizing deferral of the operating and maintenance cost portion of Entergy Arkansas' ice storm restoration costs pending their recovery.  The APSC issued such an order in March 2009 subject to certain conditions, including that if Entergy Arkansas seeks to recover the deferred costs, those costs will be subject to investigation for whether they are incremental, prudent, and reasonable.  Entergy Arkansas is still analyzing its options for the method of recovery of the ice storm restoration costs.  One option is securitization, and in April 2009 a law was enacted in Arkansas that authorizes securitization of storm damage restoration costs.  Entergy Arkansas' September 2009 general rate filing requests recovery of the 2009 ice storm costs over 10 years if it is expected that securitization would not produce lower costs for customers.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> <div id="PGBRK_18" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"> <div id="FTR_19"> <div id="GLFTR_20" style="WIDTH: 100%" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div> </div> <div id="PN_21" style="PAGE-BREAK-AFTER: always"> <div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">37</font></div> <div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"> <hr style="COLOR: black" noshade="noshade" size="2"/> </div> </div> <div id="HDR_22"> <div id="GLHDR_23" style="WIDTH: 100%" align="right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div> <div style="WIDTH: 100%" align="left"> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -1.8pt; TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -1.8pt; TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Notes to Financial Statements</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike Filing</font></font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_24" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>See the Form 10-K for a discussion of Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike, which caused catastrophic damage to portions of Entergy's service territories in Louisiana in September 2008.  Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana filed their Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike storm cost recovery case with the LPSC in May 2009.  Entergy Gulf States Louisiana seeks a determination that $152.6 million of storm restoration costs are recoverable and seeks to replenish its storm reserve in the amount of $90 million.  Entergy Louisiana seeks a determination that $267.4 million of storm restoration costs are recoverable and seeks to replenish its storm reserve in the amount of $200 million.  The storm restoration costs are net of costs that have already been paid from previously funded storm reserves.  In September 2009, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana made a supplemental filing to, among other things, recommend recovery of the costs and replenishment of the storm reserves by Louisiana Act 55 (passed in 2007) financing.  Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana recovered their costs from Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita primarily by Act 55 financing.  The parties have agreed to a procedural schedule that includes March 2010 hearing dates for both the recoverability and the method of recovery proceedings.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Entergy Texas Hurricane Ike and Hurricane Gustav Filing</font></font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_25" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>See the Form 10-K for a discussion of Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike, which caused catastrophic damage to portions of Entergy's service territory in Texas in September 2008.  In April 2009 a law was enacted in Texas that authorizes recovery of these types of costs by securitization.  Entergy Texas filed its storm cost recovery case in April 2009 seeking a determination that $577.5 million of Hurricane Ike and Hurricane Gustav restoration costs are recoverable, including estimated costs for work to be completed.  On August 5, 2009, Entergy Texas submitted to the ALJ an unopposed settlement agreement intended to resolve all issues in the storm cost recovery case.  Under the terms of the agreement $566.4 million, plus carrying costs, are eligible for recovery.  Insurance proceeds will be credited as an offset to the securitized amount.  Of the $11.1 million difference between Entergy Texas' request and the amount agreed to, which is part of the black box agreement and not directly attributable to any specific individual issues raised, $6.8 million is operation and maintenance expense for which Entergy Texas recorded a charge in the second quarter 2009.  The remaining $4.3 million was recorded as utility plant.  The PUCT approved the settlement in August 2009, and in September 2009 the PUCT approved recovery of the costs, plus carrying costs, by securitization.  See Note 4 to the financial statements for a discussion of the issuance of the securitization bonds.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Retail Rate Proceedings</font></font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_26" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>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 the Form 10-K.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"> </div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Filings with the APSC</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Retail Rates</font></font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_27" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the rate filing made by Entergy Arkansas and the proceedings regarding that filing.  On April 23, 2009, the Arkansas Supreme Court denied Entergy Arkansas' petition for review of the Court of Appeals decision.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"> </div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"> </div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"> <div id="PGBRK_28" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"> <div id="FTR_29"> <div id="GLFTR_30" style="WIDTH: 100%" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div> </div> <div id="PN_31" style="PAGE-BREAK-AFTER: always"> <div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">38</font></div> <div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"> <hr style="COLOR: black" noshade="noshade" size="2"/> </div> </div> <div id="HDR_32"> <div id="GLHDR_33" style="WIDTH: 100%" align="right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div> <div style="WIDTH: 100%" align="left"> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -1.8pt; TEXT-ALIGN: right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -1.8pt; TEXT-ALIGN: right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Notes to Financial Statements</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> </div> </div> </div><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_34" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>On September 4, 2009, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs.  Entergy Arkansas requested a $223.2 million base rate increase that would become effective in July 2010.  The filing reflects an 11.5% return on equity using a projected capital structure, and proposes a formula rate plan mechanism.  Proposed formula rate plan provisions include a +/- 25 basis point bandwidth, with earnings outside the bandwidth reset to the 11.5% return on common equity midpoint and rates changing on a prospective basis depending on whether Entergy Arkansas is over or under-earning.  The proposed formula rate plan also includes a recovery mechanism for APSC-approved costs for additional capacity purchases or construction/acquisition of new transmission or generating facilities.  The filing also requests recovery of 2009 ice storm costs over 10 years if it is expected that securitization will not produce lower costs for customers.  Entergy Arkansas is also seeking an increase in its annual storm damage accrual from $14.4 million to $22.3 million.  The APSC scheduled hearings in the proceeding beginning in May 2010.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Filings with the LPSC</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">(Entergy Louisiana)</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_35" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>See the Form 10-K for a discussion of Entergy Louisiana's formula rate plan filings with the LPSC for the 2007 and 2006 test years.  The LPSC staff and intervenors issued their reports on Entergy Louisiana's 2007 test year filing in July 2008 and, with minor exceptions, primarily raised proposed disallowance issues that were previously raised with regard to Entergy Louisiana's 2006 test year filing and remained at issue in that proceeding.  The 2006 test year included Entergy Louisiana's request to recover unrecovered fixed costs associated with the loss of customers that resulted from Hurricane Katrina.  In October 2009 the LPSC approved a settlement that resolves the 2007 and 2006 test year filings.  The settlement provides for a new formula rate plan for the 2008, 2009, and 2010 test years.  Entergy Louisiana is permitted, effective with the November 2009 billing cycle, to reset its rates to achieve a 10.25% return on equity for the 2008 test year.  10.25% is the target midpoint return on equity for the new formula rate plan, with an earnings bandwidth of +/- 80 basis points (9.45% - 11.05%).  The rate reset, a $20.5 million increase, was implemented for the November 2009 billing cycle, and the rate reset will be subject to refund pending review of the 2008 test year filing that was made on October 21, 2009.  The settlement does not allow recovery through the formula rate plan of most of Entergy Louisiana's costs associated with Entergy's stock option plan.  Pursuant to the settlement Entergy Louisiana will refund to its customers $12.9 million, which includes interest, in the November 2009 billing cycle.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">(Entergy Gulf States Louisiana)</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_36" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>See the Form 10-K for a discussion of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana's formula rate plan filing with the LPSC for the 2007 test year.  In October 2009 the LPSC approved a settlement that resolves the 2007 test year filing.  The settlement provides for a new formula rate plan for the 2008, 2009, and 2010 test years.  Entergy Gulf States Louisiana is permitted, effective with the November 2009 billing cycle, to reset its rates to achieve a 10.65% return on equity for the 2008 test year.  10.6510.65% is the target midpoint return on equity for the new formula rate plan, with an earnings bandwidth of +/- 75 basis points (9.90% - 11.40%).  The rate reset, a $36.7 million increase, was implemented for the November 2009 billing cycle, and the rate reset will be subject to refund pending review of the 2008 test year filing that was made on October 21, 2009.  The settlement does not allow recovery through the formula rate plan of most of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana's costs associated with Entergy's stock option plan.  Pursuant to the settlement Entergy Gulf States Louisiana will refund to its customers $3.7 million, which includes interest, in the November 2009 billing cycle.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Retail Rates - Gas</font> (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana)</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 36pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">In January 2009, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2008.  The filing showed a revenue deficiency of $529 thousand based on a return on common equity mid-point of 10.5%.  In April 2009, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana implemented a $255 thousand rate increase pursuant to an uncontested settlement with the LPSC staff.</font></div> </div> <div><br /></div> <div> <div id="PGBRK_37" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"> <div id="FTR_38"> <div id="GLFTR_39" style="WIDTH: 100%" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div> </div> <div id="PN_40" style="PAGE-BREAK-AFTER: always"> <div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">39</font></div> <div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"> <hr style="COLOR: black" noshade="noshade" size="2"/> </div> </div> <div id="HDR_41"> <div id="GLHDR_42" style="WIDTH: 100%" align="right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div> <div style="WIDTH: 100%" align="left"> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -1.8pt; TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -1.8pt; TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Notes to Financial Statements</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div> </div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Filings with the MPSC</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_43" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>On September 18, 2009, Entergy Mississippi filed proposed modifications to its formula rate plan rider.  The proposed modifications include: (1) resetting Entergy Mississippi's return on common equity to the middle of the formula rate plan bandwidth each year and eliminating the 50/50 sharing in the current plan, (2) replacing the current rate change limit of two percent of revenues subject to a $14.5 million revenue adjustment cap with a proposed limit of four percent of revenues, (3) implementing a projected test year for the annual filing and subsequent look-back for the prior year, and (4) modifying the performance measurement process.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_44" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>In March 2009, Entergy Mississippi made with the MPSC its annual scheduled formula rate plan filing for the 2008 test year.  The filing reported a $27.0 million revenue deficiency and an earned return on common equity of 7.41%.  Entergy Mississippi requested a $14.5 million increase in annual electric revenues, which is the maximum increase allowed under the terms of the formula rate plan.  The MPSC issued an order on June 30, 2009, finding that Entergy Mississippi's earned return was sufficiently below the lower bandwidth limit set by the formula rate plan to require a $14.5 million increase in annual revenues, effective for bills rendered on or after June 30, 2009.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_45" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>In March 2008, Entergy Mississippi made its annual scheduled formula rate plan filing for the 2007 test year with the MPSC.  The filing showed that a $10.1 million increase in annual electric revenues is warranted.  In June 2008, Entergy Mississippi reached a settlement with the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff that would result in a $3.8 million rate increase.  In January 2009 the MPSC rejected the settlement and left the current rates in effect.  Entergy Mississippi appealed the MPSC's decision to the Mississippi Supreme Court.  After the decision of the MPSC regarding the formula rate plan filing for the 2008 test year, Entergy Mississippi filed a motion to dismiss its appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Filings with the City Council</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Retail Rates</font></font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_46" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>As discussed in the Form 10-K, on July 31, 2008, Entergy New Orleans filed an electric and gas base rate case with the City Council.  On April 2, 2009, the City Council approved a comprehensive settlement.  The settlement provides for a net $35.3 million reduction in combined fuel and non-fuel electric revenue requirement, including conversion of the $10.6 million voluntary recovery credit to a permanent reduction and complete realignment of Grand Gulf cost recovery from fuel to electric base rates, and a $4.95 million gas rate increase, both effective June 1, 2009.  A new three-year formula rate plan was also adopted, with terms including an 11.1% electric return on common equity (ROE) with a +/- 40 basis point bandwidth and a 10.75% gas ROE with a +/- 50 basis point bandwidth.  Earnings outside the bandwidth reset to the midpoint ROE, with rates changing on a prospective basis depending on whether Entergy New Orleans is over- or under-earning.  The formula rate plan also includes a recovery mechanism for City Council-approved capacity additions, plus provisions for extraordinary cost changes and force majeure events.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_47" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>The rate case settlement also included $3.1 million per year in electric rates to fund the Energy Smart energy efficiency programs.  On September 17, 2009, the City Council approved the programs filed by Entergy New Orleans.  The rate settlement provides an incentive for Entergy New Orleans to meet or exceed energy savings targets set by the City Council and provides a mechanism for Entergy New Orleans to recover lost contribution to fixed costs associated with the energy savings generated from the energy efficiency programs.  The programs are expected to begin in 2010.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"> </div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Fuel Adjustment Clause Litigation</font></font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 36pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the lawsuit filed by a group of ratepayers in April 1999 against Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Corporation, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power in state court in Orleans Parish purportedly on behalf of all Entergy New Orleans ratepayers, which currently remains pending, and the corresponding complaint filed with the City Council.  In February 2004, the City Council approved a resolution that resulted in a refund to customers of $11.3 million, including interest, during the months of June through</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 36pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"> </font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 36pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> <div id="PGBRK_48" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"> <div id="FTR_49"> <div id="GLFTR_50" style="WIDTH: 100%" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div> </div> <div id="PN_51" style="PAGE-BREAK-AFTER: always"> <div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">40</font></div> <div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"> <hr style="COLOR: black" noshade="noshade" size="2"/> </div> </div> <div id="HDR_52"> <div id="GLHDR_53" style="WIDTH: 100%" align="right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div> <div style="WIDTH: 100%" align="left"> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -1.8pt; TEXT-ALIGN: right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -1.8pt; TEXT-ALIGN: right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Notes to Financial Statements</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: left"><br /></div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 36pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"> </font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 36pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"> </font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"> September 2004.  In May 2005 the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans affirmed the City Council resolution, finding no support for the plaintiffs' claim that the refund amount should be higher.  In June 2005, the plaintiffs appealed the Civil District Court decision to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.  On February 25, 2008, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal issued a decision affirming in part, and reversing in part, the Civil District Court's decision.  Although the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal did not reverse any of the substantive findings and conclusions of the City Council or the Civil District Court, the Fourth Circuit found that the amount of the refund was arbitrary and capricious and increased the amount of the refund to $34.3 million.  In April 2009 the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal and reinstated the decision of the Civil District Court.  On April 17, 2009, the plaintiffs requested rehearing by the Louisiana Supreme Court.  On May 29, 2009, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the request for rehearing.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas)</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Retail Rates</font></font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_54" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Texas made a rate filing in September 2007 with the PUCT requesting an annual rate increase totaling $107.5 million, including a base rate increase of $64.3 million and riders totaling $43.2 million.  On December 16, 2008, Entergy Texas filed a term sheet that reflected a settlement agreement that included the PUCT Staff and the other active participants in the rate case.  On December 19, 2008, the ALJs approved Entergy Texas' request to implement interim rates reflecting the agreement.  The agreement includes a $46.7 million base rate increase, among other provisions.  Under the ALJs' interim order, Entergy Texas implemented interim rates, subject to refund and surcharge, reflecting the rates established through the settlement.  These rates became effective with bills rendered on and after January 28, 2009, for usage on and after December 19, 2008.  In addition, the existing recovery mechanism for incremental purchased power capacity costs ceased as of January 28, 2009, with purchased power capacity costs then subsumed within the base rates set in this proceeding.  Certain Texas municipalities exercised their original jurisdiction and took final action to approve rates consistent with the interim rates approved by the ALJs.  In March 2009, the PUCT approved the settlement, which made the interim rates final, and this PUCT decision is now final and non-appealable.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Arkansas Attorney General and AEEC appeals</font></font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_55" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Arkansas attorney general and the AEEC appealed a December 2007 APSC order that addressed Entergy Arkansas' production cost allocation, energy cost recovery, and capacity costs riders.  Pursuant to a motion of the Arkansas attorney general and the AEEC, in September 2009 the Arkansas Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Electric Industry Restructuring in Texas</font></font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_56" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of electric restructuring activity that involves Entergy Texas.  In June 2009, a law was enacted in Texas that requires Entergy Texas to cease all activities relating to Entergy Texas' transition to competition.  The law allows Entergy Texas to remain a part of the SERC Region, although it does not prevent Entergy Texas from joining the Southwest Power Pool.  The law provides that any further proceedings to certify a power region that Entergy Texas belongs to as a qualified power region can be initiated by the PUCT, or on motion by another party, when the conditions supporting such a proceeding exist.  Under the new law, the PUCT may not approve a transition to competition plan for Entergy Texas until the expiration of four years from the PUCT's certification of Entergy Texas' power region.  In response to the new law, Entergy Texas in June 2009 gave notice to the PUCT of the withdrawal of its transition to competition plan, and requested that its transition to competition proceeding be dismissed.  In July 2009 the ALJ dismissed the proceeding.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"> </div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_57" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>The new law also contains provisions that allow Entergy Texas to be included in a cost recovery mechanism that permits annual filings for the recovery of reasonable and necessary expenditures for transmission infrastructure improvement and changes in wholesale transmission charges.  This mechanism was previously available to other non-ERCOT Texas utility companies, but not to Entergy Texas.</font></div> </div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"> <div id="PGBRK_58" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"> <div id="FTR_59"> <div id="GLFTR_60" style="WIDTH: 100%" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div> </div> <div id="PN_61" style="PAGE-BREAK-AFTER: always"> <div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">41</font></div> <div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"> <hr style="COLOR: black" noshade="noshade" size="2"/> </div> </div> <div id="HDR_62"> <div id="GLHDR_63" style="WIDTH: 100%" align="right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div> <div style="WIDTH: 100%" align="left"> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -1.8pt; TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -1.8pt; TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Notes to Financial Statements</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> </div> </div> </div><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font id="TAB1_64" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt"></font>The new law further amends already existing law that had required Entergy Texas to propose for PUCT approval a tariff to allow eligible customers the ability to contract for competitive generation.  The amending language in the new law provides, among other things, that:  1) the tariff shall not be implemented in a manner that harms the sustainability or competitiveness of manufacturers who choose not to participate in the tariff; 2) Entergy Texas shall "purchase competitive generation service, selected by the customer, and provide the generation at retail to the customer"; and 3)  Entergy Texas shall provide and price transmission service and ancillary services under that tariff at a rate that is unbundled from its cost of service.    The new law directs that the PUCT may not issue an order on the tariff that is contrary to an applicable decision, rule, or policy statement of a federal regulatory agency having jurisdiction.  Entergy Texas has thus far not made a filing with the PUCT in response to the newly adopted law addressing the tariff.  The new law provides that the PUCT shall approve, reject, or modify the proposed tariff not later than September 1, 2010.</font></div> </div> NOTE 2.  RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS Regulatory Assets See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for false false No definition available. No authoritative reference available. false false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true