2.2.0.7 false Rate and Regulatory Matters 0202 - Disclosure - Rate and Regulatory Matters true false false false 1 USD false false USD Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 USDEPS Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 Pure Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance pure xbrli 0 Shares Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 $ 2 Rate and Regulatory Matters [Abstract] 0 etr_RateAndRegulatoryMattersAbstract etr false na duration Rate And Regulatory Matters. false false false false false true false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 false false false xbrli:stringItemType string Rate And Regulatory Matters. false 3 RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS 1 us-gaap_PublicUtilitiesDisclosureTextBlock us-gaap true na duration No definition available. false false false false false false false false false false false verboselabel false 1 false false false false 0 0   <div align="left" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><b>NOTE 2. RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><u><b>Regulatory Assets</b></u> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     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 information. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 0pt"> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><b>Fuel and Purchased Power Cost Recovery</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     See Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries’ “<b>MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS —</b> <u>System Agreement Proceedings</u>” for updates to the discussion in the Form 10-K regarding the System Agreement proceedings. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Entergy Arkansas</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">Energy Cost Recovery Rider — APSC Investigations </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Entergy Arkansas’ retail rates include an energy cost recovery rider. In early October 2005, the APSC initiated an investigation into Entergy Arkansas’ interim energy cost rate. The investigation focused on Entergy Arkansas’ 1) gas contracting, portfolio, and hedging practices; 2) wholesale purchases during the period; 3) management of the coal inventory at its coal generation plants; and 4) response to the contractual failure of the railroads to provide coal deliveries. In March 2006, the APSC extended its investigation to cover the costs included in Entergy Arkansas’ March 2006 annual energy cost rate filing, and a hearing was held in the APSC energy cost recovery investigation in October 2006. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In January 2007, the APSC issued an order in its review of the energy cost rate. The APSC found that Entergy Arkansas failed to maintain an adequate coal inventory level going into the summer of 2005 and that Entergy Arkansas should be responsible for any incremental energy costs resulting from two outages caused by employee and contractor error. The coal plant generation curtailments were caused by railroad delivery problems and Entergy Arkansas has since resolved litigation with the railroad regarding the delivery problems. The APSC staff was directed to perform an analysis with Entergy Arkansas’ assistance to determine the additional fuel and purchased energy costs associated with these findings and file the analysis within 60 days of the order. After a final determination of the costs is made by the APSC, Entergy Arkansas would be directed to refund that amount with interest to its customers as a credit on the energy cost recovery rider. Entergy Arkansas requested rehearing of the order. In March 2007, in order to allow further consideration by the APSC, the APSC granted Entergy Arkansas’ petition for rehearing and for stay of the APSC order. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In October 2008, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion to lift the stay and to rescind the APSC’s January 2007 order in light of the arguments advanced in Entergy Arkansas’ rehearing petition and because the value for Entergy Arkansas’ customers obtained through the resolved railroad litigation is significantly greater than the incremental cost of actions identified by the APSC as imprudent. In December 2008, the APSC denied the motion to lift the stay pending resolution of Entergy Arkansas’ rehearing request and of the unresolved issues in the proceeding. The APSC ordered the parties to submit their unresolved issues list in the pending proceeding, which the parties did. In February 2010 the APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’ request for rehearing, and held a hearing in September 2010 to determine the amount of damages, if any, that should be assessed against Entergy Arkansas. A decision is pending. Entergy Arkansas expects the amount of damages, if any, to have an immaterial effect on its results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The APSC also established a separate docket to consider the resolved railroad litigation, and in February 2010 it established a procedural schedule that concluded with testimony through September 2010. In a subsequent order the APSC scheduled a hearing for February 3, 2011. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><u>Entergy Gulf States Louisiana</u> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In January 2003, the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate a proceeding to audit the fuel adjustment clause filings of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and its affiliates pursuant to a November 1997 LPSC general order. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period January 1995 through December 2002. In June 2005 the LPSC expanded the audit period to include the years through 2004. Discovery has largely concluded, but the LPSC Staff has not issued its report. The LPSC recently directed its staff to issue the report by the end of December 2010. A procedural schedule will be set to establish a hearing process to address any issues noted in the LPSC Staff report that are contested by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana has recorded provisions for the estimated effect of this proceeding. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In April 2010 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment clause filings for its gas distribution operations pursuant to a March 1999 LPSC general order. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana for the period from January 2003 through December 2008. Discovery is in progress, but a procedural schedule has not been established. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><u>Entergy Louisiana</u> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In April 2010 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings pursuant to a November 1997 LPSC general order. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through by Entergy Louisiana for the period from January 2005 through December 2009. Discovery is in progress, but a procedural schedule has not been established. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><u>Entergy Mississippi</u> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     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 independent audit firm submitted its report to the MPSC in December 2009. The report does not recommend that any costs be disallowed for recovery. The report did suggest that some costs, less than one percent of the fuel and purchased power costs recovered during the period, may have been more reasonably charged to customers through base rates rather than through fuel charges, but the report did not suggest that customers should not have paid for those costs. In November 2009 the MPSC also retained another firm to review processes and practices related to fuel and purchased energy. The results of that review were filed with the MPSC in March 2010. In that report, the independent consulting firm found that the practices and procedures in activities that directly affect the costs recovered through Entergy Mississippi’s fuel adjustment clause appear reasonable. Both audit reports were certified by the MPSC to the Mississippi Legislature, as required by Mississippi law. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><u>Entergy Texas</u> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     As discussed in the Form 10-K, 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. In December 2008 the PUCT adopted an ALJ proposal for decision recommending an additional $18.6 million allocation to Texas retail customers. Because the PUCT allocation to Texas retail customers is inconsistent with the LPSC allocation to Louisiana retail customers, the PUCT’s decision results 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. The federal proceeding had been abated pending appeal of the FERC’s order in the proceeding discussed below. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Entergy Texas 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. In May 2009 the FERC issued an order rejecting the proposed amendment. Because of the FERC’s order, Entergy Texas recorded the effects of the PUCT’s allocation of the additional $18.6 million to Texas retail customers in the second quarter 2009. On an after-tax basis, the charge to earnings was approximately $13.0 million (including interest). In May 2010 the FERC rejected Entergy’s request for rehearing of the FERC’s order. On July 14, 2010, Entergy appealed the FERC’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In the settlement of Entergy Texas’s December 2009 rate case proceeding that is discussed further below, Entergy Texas agreed to credit to customers $18.6 million after the settlement is approved by the PUCT, with the parties agreeing that this amount represents the remaining portion of the 2007 rough production cost equalization payments received by Entergy Texas. Entergy Texas also agreed to dismiss the state and federal district court proceedings and its appeal of the FERC’s decision, all of which were seeking to change the result of the December 2008 PUCT decision. The settlement of the 2009 rate case is pending before the PUCT. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In June 2010, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to refund approximately $66 million, including interest, of fuel cost recovery over-collections through May 2010. In September 2010 the PUCT issued an order providing for a $77 million refund for fuel cost recovery over-collections through June 2010. The refund will be made for most customers over a three-month period beginning with the September 2010 billing cycle. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Storm Cost Recovery</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><u>Entergy Arkansas Storm Reserve Accounting</u> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The APSC’s June 2007 order in Entergy Arkansas’s base rate proceeding 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 reinstated storm reserve accounting effective January 1, 2009. A hearing on Entergy Arkansas’s request was held in March 2010, and in April 2010 the ALJ approved Entergy Arkansas’s establishment of a storm cost reserve account. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><u>Entergy Arkansas January 2009 Ice Storm</u> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2009 a severe ice storm caused significant damage to Entergy Arkansas’s transmission and distribution lines, equipment, poles, and other facilities. A law was enacted in April 2009 in Arkansas that authorizes securitization of storm damage restoration costs. In June 2010 the APSC issued a financing order authorizing the issuance of approximately $126.3 million in storm cost recovery bonds, which includes carrying costs of $11.5 million and $4.6 million of up-front financing costs. See Note 4 to the financial statements for a discussion of the August 2010 issuance of the securitization bonds. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><u>Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike Filing</u> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2008, Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike caused catastrophic damage to Entergy’s service territory. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana filed their Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike storm cost recovery case with the LPSC in May 2009. In September 2009, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana and the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation (LURC), an instrumentality of the State of Louisiana, filed with the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant financing orders authorizing the financing of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Act 55 of the Louisiana Regular Session of 2007 (Act 55 financings). Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita storm costs were financed primarily by Act 55 financings<b>, </b>as discussed in the Form 10-K. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana also filed an application requesting LPSC approval for ancillary issues including the mechanism to flow charges and Act 55 financing savings to customers via a Storm Cost Offset rider. On December 30, 2009, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana entered into a stipulation agreement with the LPSC Staff that provides for total recoverable costs of approximately $234 million for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and $394 million for Entergy Louisiana, including carrying costs. Under this stipulation, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana agrees not to recover $4.4 million and Entergy Louisiana agrees not to recover $7.2 million of their storm restoration spending. The stipulation also permits replenishing Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s storm reserve in the amount of $90 million and Entergy Louisiana’s storm reserve in the amount of $200 million when the Act 55 financings are accomplished. In March and April 2010, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, and other parties to the proceeding filed with the LPSC an uncontested stipulated settlement that includes these terms and also includes Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s proposals under the Act 55 financings, which includes a commitment to pass on to customers a minimum of $15.5 million and $27.75 million of customer benefits, respectively, through prospective annual rate reductions of $3.1 million and $5.55 million for five years. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="right" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 0pt"> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">A stipulation hearing was held before the ALJ on April 13, 2010. On April 21, 2010, the LPSC approved the settlement and subsequently issued two financing orders and one ratemaking order intended to facilitate the implementation of the Act 55 financings. In June 2010 the Louisiana State Bond Commission approved the Act 55 financings. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     On July 22, 2010, the Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority (LCDA) issued $468.9 million in bonds under Act 55. From the $462.4 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LCDA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $200 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $262.4 million directly to Entergy Louisiana. From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Louisiana used $262.4 million to acquire 2,624,297.11 Class B preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy, that carry a 9% annual distribution rate. Distributions are payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2010, and the membership interests have a liquidation price of $100 per unit. The preferred membership interests are callable at the option of Entergy Holdings Company LLC after ten years under the terms of the LLC agreement. The terms of the membership interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Holdings Company LLC is subject, including the requirement to maintain a net worth of at least $1 billion. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     On July 22, 2010, the LCDA issued another $244.1 million in bonds under Act 55. From the $240.3 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LCDA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $90 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and transferred $150.3 million directly to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana used $150.3 million to acquire 1,502,643.04 Class B preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy, that carry a 9% annual distribution rate. Distributions are payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2010, and the membership interests have a liquidation price of $100 per unit. The preferred membership interests are callable at the option of Entergy Holdings Company LLC after ten years under the terms of the LLC agreement. The terms of the membership interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Holdings Company LLC is subject, including the requirement to maintain a net worth of at least $1 billion. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Entergy, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LCDA, and there is no recourse against Entergy, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana or Entergy Louisiana in the event of a bond default. To service the bonds, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana collect a system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC, and remit the collections to the bond indenture trustee. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because they are merely acting as the billing and collection agents for the state. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><u>Entergy New Orleans</u> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In December 2005, the U.S. Congress passed the Katrina Relief Bill, a hurricane aid package that included Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding (for the states affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma) that allowed state and local leaders to fund individual recovery priorities. In March 2007, the City Council certified that Entergy New Orleans incurred $205 million in storm-related costs through December 2006 that are eligible for CDBG funding under the state action plan, and certified Entergy New Orleans’ estimated costs of $465 million for its gas system rebuild. Entergy New Orleans received $180.8 million of CDBG funds in 2007 and $19.2 million in 2010. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Little Gypsy Repowering Project</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In October 2009, Entergy Louisiana made a filing with the LPSC seeking permission to cancel the Little Gypsy repowering project and seeking recovery over a five-year period of the project costs. In June 2010 and August 2010, the LPSC Staff and Intervenors filed testimony. The LPSC Staff (1) agreed that it was prudent to move the project from long-term suspension to cancellation and that the timing of the decision to suspend on a longer-term basis was not imprudent; (2) indicated that, except for $0.8 million in compensation-related costs, the costs incurred should be deemed prudent; (3) recommended recovery from customers over ten years but stated that the LPSC may want to consider 15 years; (4) allowed for recovery of carrying costs and earning a return on project costs, but at a reduced rate approximating the cost of debt, while also acknowledging that the LPSC may consider ordering no return; and (5) indicated that Entergy Louisiana should be directed to securitize project costs, if legally feasible and in the public interest. In the third quarter 2010, in accordance with accounting standards, Entergy Louisiana determined that it is probable that the Little Gypsy repowering project will be abandoned and accordingly has reclassified $199.8 million of project costs from construction work in progress to a regulatory asset. This accounting reclassification does not modify Entergy Louisiana’s requested relief pending before the LPSC. The procedural schedule calls for hearings to begin in November 2010. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     There currently is pending before the LPSC an appeal by the LPSC Staff of a decision by the ALJ relating to a dispute between the LPSC Staff and industrial customer intervenors relating to positions regarding the allocation of the project costs among customers. The LPSC is expected to review this appeal at its November 10, 2010 meeting. The ALJ has determined that the hearings in the underlying case will begin on the date currently scheduled and that all issues other than cost allocation will be heard at that time. A status conference will be held on November 12, 2010 to determine the hearing schedule for the cost allocation issue. The record from the original hearing will be held open until the conclusion of the hearing on cost allocation. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Federal Healthcare Legislation</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) became federal law on March 23, 2010, and, on March 30, 2010, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 became federal law and amended certain provisions of the PPACA. These new federal laws change the law governing employer-sponsored group health plans, like Entergy’s plans. All of the effects of these changes are not yet determinable because technical guidance regarding application must still be issued, and Entergy will monitor these developments. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     One provision of the new law that is effective in 2013 eliminates the federal income tax deduction for prescription drug expenses of Medicare beneficiaries for which the plan sponsor also receives the retiree drug subsidy under Part D. Entergy receives subsidy payments under the Medicare Part D plan and therefore in the first quarter 2010 recorded a reduction to the deferred tax asset related to the unfunded other postretirement benefit obligation. The offset was recorded as a charge to income tax expense or, for the Utility, including each Registrant Subsidiary, as a regulatory asset. The Utility has a regulatory asset of $99 million recorded for this, including $31 million at Entergy Arkansas, $16 million at Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, $19 million at Entergy Louisiana, $10 million at Entergy Mississippi, $7 million at Entergy New Orleans, $11 million at Entergy Texas, and $5 million at System Energy. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><u><b>Retail Rate Proceedings</b></u> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The following chart summarizes the Utility operating companies’ current retail base rates: </div> <div align="center"> <table style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left" cellspacing="0" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">  <tr valign="bottom"> <td width="20%"> </td> <td width="3%"> </td> <td width="10%"> </td> <td width="1%"> </td> <td width="5%"> </td> <td width="3%"> </td> <td width="58%"> </td> </tr> <tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom"> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="3"><b>Authorized</b></td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center"> </td> </tr> <tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom"> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="3"><b>Return on</b></td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center"> </td> </tr> <tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom"> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="3"><b>Common</b></td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center"> </td> </tr> <tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"><b>Company</b></td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="3" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"><b>Equity</b></td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"> </td> </tr>   <tr valign="bottom"> <td valign="top"> <div style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">  </div></td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="top"> </td> <td align="right" valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top"> </td> <td> </td> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td valign="top"> <div style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">Entergy Arkansas </div></td> <td> </td> <td colspan="3" align="center" valign="top">10.2%</td> <td> </td> <td align="left" valign="top"> <div style="margin-left:26px; text-indent:-26px"><b>— </b>   Current retail base rates implemented in the July 2010 billing cycle pursuant to a settlement approved by the APSC. </div></td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td valign="top"> <div style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">  </div></td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="top"> </td> <td align="right" valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top"> </td> <td> </td> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td valign="top"> <div style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">Entergy Gulf States Louisiana </div></td> <td> </td> <td colspan="3" align="center" valign="top">9.9% - 11.4% Electric; 10.0% - 11.0% Gas </td> <td> </td> <td align="left" valign="top"> <div style="margin-left:26px; text-indent:-26px"><b>— </b>   Current retail electric base rates implemented in the September 2010 billing cycle based on Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s revised 2009 test year formula rate plan filing, subject to refund and final approval by the LPSC. </div></td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td valign="top"> <div style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">  </div></td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="top"> </td> <td align="right" valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top"> </td> <td> </td> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td valign="top"> <div style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">Entergy Louisiana </div></td> <td> </td> <td colspan="3" align="center" valign="top">9.45% - 11.05%</td> <td> </td> <td align="left" valign="top"> <div style="margin-left:26px; text-indent:-26px"><b>— </b>   Current retail base rates implemented in the September 2010 billing cycle based on Entergy Louisiana’s revised 2009 test year formula rate plan filing, subject to refund and final approval by the LPSC. </div></td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td valign="top"> <div style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">  </div></td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="top"> </td> <td align="right" valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top"> </td> <td> </td> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td valign="top"> <div style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">Entergy Mississippi </div></td> <td> </td> <td colspan="3" align="center" valign="top">10.79% - 13.05%</td> <td> </td> <td align="left" valign="top"> <div style="margin-left:26px; text-indent:-26px"><b>— </b>   Current retail base rates reflect Entergy Mississippi’s latest formula rate plan filing, based on the 2009 test year, and a settlement approved by the MPSC. </div></td> </tr>  </table> </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="right" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 0pt"> </div> <div align="center"> <table style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left" cellspacing="0" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">  <tr valign="bottom"> <td width="20%"> </td> <td width="3%"> </td> <td width="10%"> </td> <td width="1%"> </td> <td width="5%"> </td> <td width="3%"> </td> <td width="58%"> </td> </tr> <tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom"> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="3"><b>Authorized</b></td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center"> </td> </tr> <tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom"> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="3"><b>Return on</b></td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center"> </td> </tr> <tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom"> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="3"><b>Common</b></td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center"> </td> </tr> <tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"><b>Company</b></td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="3" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"><b>Equity</b></td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"> </td> </tr>   <tr valign="bottom"> <td valign="top"> <div style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">  </div></td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="top"> </td> <td align="right" valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top"> </td> <td> </td> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td valign="top"> <div style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">Entergy New Orleans </div></td> <td> </td> <td colspan="3" align="center" valign="top">10.7% - 11.5% Electric; 10.25% - 11.25% Gas </td> <td> </td> <td align="left" valign="top"> <div style="margin-left:26px; text-indent:-26px"><b>— </b>   Retail base rates through the September 2010 billing cycle implemented effective June 1, 2009, pursuant to a settlement of Entergy New Orleans’s base rate case approved by the City Council. Retail base rates implemented in the October 2010 billing cycle pursuant to Entergy New Orleans’s 2009 test year formula rate plan filing and a settlement approved by the City Council Utility Committee that is pending consideration by the full City Council. </div></td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td valign="top"> <div style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">  </div></td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="top"> </td> <td align="right" valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top"> </td> <td> </td> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td valign="top"> <div style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">Entergy Texas </div></td> <td> </td> <td colspan="3" align="center" valign="top">10.0%</td> <td> </td> <td align="left" valign="top"> <div style="margin-left:26px; text-indent:-26px"><b>— </b>   Current retail base rates implemented for usage beginning August 15, 2010, pursuant to a settlement of Entergy Texas’s base rate case. PUCT consideration of the base rate case settlement is pending. </div></td> </tr>  </table> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to the Form 10-K. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Filings with the APSC</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     As discussed in the Form 10-K, on September 4, 2009, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. In June 2010 the APSC approved a settlement and subsequent compliance tariffs that provide for a $63.7 million rate increase, effective for bills rendered for the first billing cycle of July 2010. The settlement provides for a 10.2% return on common equity. Entergy Arkansas’s proposed formula rate plan mechanism, including a recovery mechanism for APSC-approved costs for additional capacity purchases or construction/acquisition of new transmission or generating facilities, was not adopted under the settlement. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Filings with the LPSC</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">(Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     See the Form 10-K for a discussion of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s formula rate plan that the LPSC approved for the 2008, 2009, and 2010 test years. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, effective with the November 2009 billing cycle, reset its rates to achieve a 10.65% return on equity for the 2008 test year. The rate reset, a $44.3 million increase that includes a $36.9 million cost of service adjustment, plus $7.4 million net for increased capacity costs and a base rate reclassification, was implemented for the November 2009 billing cycle, and the rate reset was subject to refund pending review of the 2008 test year filing that was made in October 2009. In January 2010, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana implemented an additional $23.9 million rate increase pursuant to a special rate implementation filing made in December 2009, primarily for incremental capacity costs approved by the LPSC. In May 2010, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the LPSC staff submitted a joint report on the 2008 test year filing and requested that the LPSC accept the report, which will result in a $0.8 million reduction in current rates effective in the June 2010 billing cycle and a $0.5 million refund. At its May 19, 2010 meeting, the LPSC accepted the joint report. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In May 2010, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana made its formula rate plan filing with the LPSC for the 2009 test year. The filing reflected a 10.25% return on common equity, which is within the allowed earnings bandwidth, indicating no cost of service rate change is necessary under the formula rate plan. The filing does reflect, however, consistent with a December 2009 filing, a revenue requirement increase to provide supplemental funding for the decommissioning trust maintained for the LPSC-regulated 70% share of River Bend, in response to a NRC notification of a projected shortfall of decommissioning funding assurance. The filing also reflects a rate increase for incremental capacity costs. In July 2010 the LPSC approved a $7.8 million increase in the revenue requirement for decommissioning, effective September 2010. In August 2010, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana made a revised 2009 test year filing. The revised filing reflected a 10.12% earned return on common equity, which is within the allowed earnings bandwidth resulting in no cost of service adjustment. The revised filing also reflected two increases outside of the formula rate plan sharing mechanism: (1) the previously approved decommissioning revenue requirement, and (2) $25.2 million for capacity costs. The rates reflected in the revised filing became effective, beginning with the first billing cycle of September 2010, subject to refund and final approval by the LPSC. The September 2010 rate change contributed approximately $2.8 million to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s revenues in the third quarter 2010. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In January 2010, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2009. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 10.87%, which is within the earnings bandwidth of 10.5% plus or minus fifty basis points, resulting in no rate change. In April 2010, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed a revised evaluation report reflecting changes agreed upon with the LPSC Staff. The revised evaluation report also results in no rate change. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">(Entergy Louisiana) </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     See the Form 10-K for a discussion of Entergy Louisiana’s formula rate plan that the LPSC approved for the 2008, 2009, and 2010 test years. Entergy Louisiana, effective with the November 2009 billing cycle, reset its rates to achieve a 10.25% return on equity for the 2008 test year. The rate reset, a $2.5 million increase that includes a $16.3 million cost of service adjustment less a $13.8 million net reduction for decreased capacity costs and a base rate reclassification, was implemented for the November 2009 billing cycle, and the rate reset was subject to refund pending review of the 2008 test year filing that was made in October 2009. In April 2010, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff submitted a joint report on the 2008 test year filing and requested that the LPSC accept the report, which will result in a $0.1 million reduction in current rates effective in the May 2010 billing cycle and a $0.1 million refund. In addition, Entergy Louisiana will move the recovery of approximately $12.5 million of capacity costs from fuel adjustment clause recovery to base rate recovery. At its April 21, 2010 meeting, the LPSC accepted the joint report. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In May 2010, Entergy Louisiana made its formula rate plan filing with the LPSC for the 2009 test year. The filing reflected a 10.82% return on common equity, which is within the allowed earnings bandwidth, indicating no cost of service rate change is necessary under the formula rate plan. The filing does reflect, however, consistent with a December 2009 filing, a revenue requirement increase to provide supplemental funding for the decommissioning trust maintained for Waterford 3, in response to a NRC notification of a projected shortfall of decommissioning funding assurance. The filing also reflects a rate change for incremental capacity costs. In July 2010 the LPSC approved a $3.5 million increase in the retail revenue requirement for decommissioning, effective September 2010. In August 2010 Entergy Louisiana made a revised 2009 test year formula rate plan filing. The revised filing reflected a 10.82% earned return on common equity, which is within the allowed earnings bandwidth resulting in no cost of service adjustment. The filing also reflected two increases outside of the formula rate plan sharing mechanism: (1) the previously approved decommissioning revenue requirement, and (2) $2.2 million for capacity costs. The rates reflected in the revised filing became effective beginning with the first billing cycle of September 2010, subject to refund and final approval by the LPSC. The September 2010 rate change contributed approximately $0.5 million to Entergy Louisiana’s revenues in the third quarter 2010. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Filings with the MPSC</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In September 2009, Entergy Mississippi filed with the MPSC proposed modifications to its formula rate plan rider. In March 2010 the MPSC issued an order: (1) providing the opportunity for a reset of Entergy Mississippi’s return on common equity to a point within the formula rate plan bandwidth and eliminating the 50/50 sharing that had been in the plan, (2) modifying the performance measurement process, and (3) replacing the revenue change limit of two percent of revenues, which was subject to a $14.5 million revenue adjustment cap, with a limit of four percent of revenues, although any adjustment above two percent requires a hearing before the MPSC. The MPSC did not approve Entergy Mississippi’s request to use a projected test year for its annual scheduled formula rate plan filing and, therefore, Entergy Mississippi will continue to use a historical test year for its annual evaluation reports under the plan. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2010, Entergy Mississippi submitted its 2009 test year filing, its first annual filing under the new formula rate plan rider. In June 2010 the MPSC approved a joint stipulation between Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff that provides for no change in rates, but does provide for the deferral as a regulatory asset of $3.9 million of legal expenses associated with certain litigation involving the Mississippi Attorney General, as well as ongoing legal expenses in that litigation until the litigation is resolved. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Filings with the City Council</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In May 2010, Entergy New Orleans filed its electric and gas formula rate plan evaluation reports. The filings requested a $12.8 million electric base revenue decrease and a $2.4 million gas base revenue increase. Entergy New Orleans and the City Council’s Advisors have reached a settlement that would result in an $18.0 million electric base revenue decrease and zero gas base revenue change effective with the October 2010 billing cycle. The proposed settlement received unanimous City Council Utility Committee approval on October 19, 2010 and full City Council consideration of the settlement is pending. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2009, Entergy Texas filed a rate case requesting a $198.7 million increase reflecting an 11.5% return on common equity based on an adjusted June 2009 test year. The filing includes a proposed cost of service adjustment rider with a three-year term beginning with the 2010 calendar year as the initial evaluation period. Key provisions include a plus or minus 15 basis point bandwidth, with earnings outside the bandwidth reset to the bottom or top of the band and rates changing prospectively depending upon whether Entergy Texas is under or over-earning. The annual change in revenue requirement is limited to a percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for urban areas, and the filing includes a provision for extraordinary events greater than $10 million per year that would be considered separately. The filing also proposes a purchased power recovery rider and a competitive generation service tariff and will establish test year baseline values to be used in the transmission cost recovery factor rider authorized for use by Entergy Texas in the 2009 legislative session. The rate case also includes a $2.8 million revenue requirement to provide supplemental funding for the decommissioning trust maintained for the 70% share of River Bend for which Entergy Texas retail customers are partially responsible, in response to an NRC notification of a projected shortfall of decommissioning funding assurance. Beginning in May 2010, Entergy Texas implemented a $17.5 million interim rate increase, subject to refund. Intervenors and PUCT Staff filed testimony opposing the riders discussed above and recommended adjustments that would result in a maximum rate increase of, based on the PUCT Staff’s testimony, $58 million. Hearings regarding the merits of the competitive generation service tariff, which was a proposal required by law that would allow eligible customers to obtain alternative generation supply, were held in July 2010. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The parties filed a settlement in August 2010 intended to resolve the other issues in the rate case proceeding. The settlement provides for a $59 million base rate increase for electricity usage beginning August 15, 2010, with an additional increase of $9 million for bills rendered beginning May 2, 2011. The settlement stipulates an authorized return on equity of 10.125%. The settlement provides that Entergy Texas’s proposed cost of service adjustment rider, purchased power recovery rider, and transmission cost recovery factors will not be approved in the rate case proceeding, although baseline values were established to be used in Entergy Texas’s request for a transmission recovery factor that will be made in a separate proceeding. The settlement states that Entergy Texas’s fuel costs for the period April 2007 through June 2009 are reconciled, with $3.25 million of disallowed costs, which were included in the interim fuel refund discussed above. The settlement also sets River Bend decommissioning costs at $2.0 million annually. Consistent with the settlement, in the third quarter 2010, Entergy Texas amortized $11 million of rate case costs. The May and August 2010 rate changes have contributed approximately $11.8 million to Entergy Texas’s revenues in 2010. In October 2010 the ALJ forwarded the settlement to the PUCT for its consideration and also recommended rejection of the competitive generation service tariff. The PUCT is scheduled to consider the settlement and ALJ’s recommendation in November 2010. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 0pt"> </div> </div>  <!-- Begin Block Tagged Note false false false us-types:textBlockItemType textblock This element can be used to encapsulate the entire disclosure for public utilities (including data and tables). Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 71 false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true