2.2.0.25falsefalse0202 - Disclosure - Rate and Regulatory Matterstruefalsefalse1falsefalseUSDfalsefalse1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010
USD ($)
USD ($) / shares
$Jan-01-2010_Dec-31-2010http://www.sec.gov/CIK0000065984duration2010-01-01T00:00:002010-12-31T00:00:00USDStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170SharesStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0PureStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancepurexbrli0USDEPSDividehttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso4217http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0USDUSD$2true0etr_RateAndRegulatoryMattersAbstractetrfalsenadurationRate And Regulatory Matters.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherxbrli:stringItemTypestringRate And Regulatory Matters.falsefalse3false0us-gaap_PublicUtilitiesDisclosureTextBlockus-gaaptruenadurationNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseverboselabel1falsefalsefalse00<!--DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd" -->
<!-- Begin Block Tagged Note 2 - us-gaap:PublicUtilitiesDisclosureTextBlock-->
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>NOTE 2. RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS</b>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><u><b>Regulatory Assets</b></u>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Other Regulatory Assets</b>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Regulatory assets represent probable future revenues associated with costs that are expected
to be recovered from customers through the regulatory ratemaking process affecting the Utility
business. In addition to the regulatory assets that are specifically disclosed on the face of the
balance sheets, the table below provides detail of “Other regulatory assets” that are included on
Entergy’s balance sheets as of December 31, 2010 and 2009:
</div>
<div align="center">
<table style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left" cellspacing="0" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">
<!-- Begin Table Head -->
<tr valign="bottom">
<td width="76%"> </td>
<td width="5%"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td width="5%"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td width="5%"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td width="5%"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom">
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="2" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"><b>2010</b></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="2" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"><b>2009</b></td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom">
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="6">(In Millions)</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<!-- End Table Head -->
<!-- Begin Table Body -->
<tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><b>Asset Retirement Obligation </b>- recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning
(Note 9) (b)
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">406.4</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">403.9</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><b>Deferred capacity </b>- recovery timing will be determined by the LPSC in
the formula rate plan filings (Note 2 — Retail Rate Proceedings — Filings with the LPSC)
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">15.8</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">23.2</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><b>Grand
Gulf fuel - non-current and power management rider </b>- recovered through rate
riders when rates are redetermined periodically (Note 2 — Fuel and purchased power cost
recovery)
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">17.4</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">58.2</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><b>Gas hedging costs </b>- recovered through fuel rates
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">1.9</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">0.4</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><b>Pension & postretirement costs </b>(Note 11 — Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement
Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (b)
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">1,734.7</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">1,481.7</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><b>Postretirement benefits </b>- recovered through 2012 (Note 11 — Other Postretirement
Benefits)
(b)
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">4.8</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">7.2</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><b>Provision for storm damages, including hurricane costs </b>- recovered through
securitization, insurance proceeds, and retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery
Filings with Retail Regulators)
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">1,026.0</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">1,183.2</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><b>Removal costs </b>- recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (b)
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">81.5</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">44.4</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><b>River Bend AFUDC </b>- recovered through August 2025 (Note 1 — River Bend AFUDC)
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">26.2</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">28.1</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><b>Sale-leaseback deferral </b>- Grand Gulf Lease Obligation recovered through
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">22.3</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">115.3</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">June 2014 and Waterford 3 Lease Obligation (in 2009) (Note 10 — Sale and Leaseback
Transactions — Grand Gulf Lease Obligations and Waterford 3 Lease Obligations)
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><b>Spindletop gas storage facility </b>- recovered through December 2032 (a)
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">32.6</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">34.2</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><b>Transition to competition costs </b>- recovered over a 15-year period through February 2021
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">95.8</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">101.9</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><b>Little Gypsy cost proceeding </b>— recovery timing will be determined by the LPSC in the
project costs proceeding (Note 2 — Little Gypsy Repowering Project)
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">200.9</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">—</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><b>Unamortized loss on reacquired debt </b>- recovered over term of debt
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">122.5</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">115.0</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><b>Other</b>
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">49.4</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="right">50.5</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-size: 1px">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"> 
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" colspan="2" align="right" style="border-top: 1px solid #000000"> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" colspan="2" align="right" style="border-top: 1px solid #000000"> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:30px; text-indent:-15px"><b>Total</b>
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">3,838.2</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">3,647.2</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-size: 1px">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"> 
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" colspan="2" align="right" style="border-top: 3px double #000000"> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" colspan="2" align="right" style="border-top: 3px double #000000"> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<!-- End Table Body -->
</table>
</div>
<div align="left">
<div style="font-size: 3pt; margin-top: 16pt; width: 18%; border-top: 1px solid #000000"> 
</div>
</div>
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left">
<tr>
<td width="3%"></td>
<td width="1%"></td>
<td width="96%"></td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left">(a)</td>
<td> </td>
<td>The jurisdictional split order assigned the regulatory asset to Entergy
Texas. The regulatory asset, however, is being recovered and amortized at
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. As a result, a billing will occur monthly
over the same term as the recovery and receipts will be submitted to
Entergy Texas. Entergy Texas has recorded a receivable from Entergy Gulf
States Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana has recorded a
corresponding payable.</td>
</tr>
</table>
<!-- Folio -->
<!-- /Folio -->
</div>
<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">
<div align="right" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 0pt">
</div>
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left">
<tr>
<td width="3%"></td>
<td width="1%"></td>
<td width="96%"></td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left">(b)</td>
<td> </td>
<td>Does not earn a return on investment, but is offset by related liabilities.</td>
</tr>
</table>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Fuel and purchased power cost recovery</b>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi,
Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas are allowed to recover fuel and purchased power costs
through fuel mechanisms included in electric and gas rates that are recorded as fuel cost recovery
revenues. The difference between revenues collected and the current fuel and purchased power costs
is recorded as “Deferred fuel costs” on the Utility operating companies’ financial statements. The
table below shows the amount of deferred fuel costs as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, that Entergy
expects to recover (or return to customers) through fuel mechanisms, subject to subsequent
regulatory review.
</div>
<div align="center">
<table style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left" cellspacing="0" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">
<!-- Begin Table Head -->
<tr valign="bottom">
<td width="76%"> </td>
<td width="5%"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td width="5%"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td width="5%"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td width="5%"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom">
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="2" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"><b>2010</b></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="2" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"><b>2009</b></td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom">
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="6">(In Millions)</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<!-- End Table Head -->
<!-- Begin Table Body -->
<tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Entergy Arkansas
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">61.5</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">122.8</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Entergy Gulf States Louisiana (a)
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">77.8</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">57.8</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Entergy Louisiana (a)
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">8.8</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">66.4</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Entergy Mississippi
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">3.2</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td align="right">($72.9</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap">)</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Entergy New Orleans (a)
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td align="right">($2.8</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap">)</td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">8.1</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Entergy Texas
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td align="right">($77.4</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap">)</td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td align="right">($102.7</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap">)</td>
</tr>
<!-- End Table Body -->
</table>
</div>
<div align="left">
<div style="font-size: 3pt; margin-top: 16pt; width: 18%; border-top: 1px solid #000000"> 
</div>
</div>
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left">
<tr>
<td width="3%"></td>
<td width="1%"></td>
<td width="96%"></td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left">(a)</td>
<td> </td>
<td>2010 and 2009 include $100.1 million for Entergy Gulf States
Louisiana, $68 million for Entergy Louisiana , and $4.1 million for
Entergy New Orleans of fuel, purchased power, and capacity costs,
which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery
periods are indeterminate but are expected to be over a period greater
than twelve months.</td>
</tr>
</table>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">Entergy Gulf States Louisiana made a $36.8 million adjustment to its deferred fuel costs in the
fourth quarter 2009 relating to unrecovered nuclear fuel costs incurred since January 2008 that
will now be recovered after a revision to the fuel adjustment clause methodology.
</div>
<!-- Folio -->
<!-- /Folio -->
</div>
<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<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"><u>Entergy Arkansas</u>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">Production Cost Allocation Rider
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The APSC approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail
portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas as a result of the System Agreement proceedings,
which are discussed in the “System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings” section below. These
costs cause an increase in Entergy Arkansas’s deferred fuel cost balance because Entergy Arkansas
pays the costs over seven months but collects them from customers over twelve months.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">Energy Cost Recovery Rider
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Entergy Arkansas’s retail rates include an energy cost recovery rider to recover fuel and
purchased energy costs in monthly bills. The rider utilizes prior calendar year energy costs and
projected energy sales for the twelve-month period commencing on April 1 of each year to develop an
energy cost rate, which is redetermined annually and includes a true-up adjustment reflecting the
over-recovery or under-recovery, including carrying charges, of the energy cost for the prior
calendar year. The energy cost recovery rider tariff also allows an interim rate request depending
upon the level of over- or under-recovery of fuel and purchased energy costs.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In early October 2005, the APSC initiated an investigation into Entergy Arkansas’s interim
energy cost recovery rate. The investigation focused on Entergy Arkansas’s 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’s 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’s 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’s 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’s rehearing petition and
because the value for Entergy Arkansas’s 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’s 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’s 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. Testimony has been filed and the APSC will now decide the case based on the record
in the proceeding, including the prefiled testimony.
</div>
<!-- Folio -->
<!-- /Folio -->
</div>
<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<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"><u>Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana</u>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana recover electric fuel and purchased power
costs for the upcoming month based upon the level of such costs from the prior month. Entergy Gulf
States Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustments include estimates for the billing month adjusted by a
surcharge or credit that arises from an annual reconciliation of fuel costs incurred with fuel cost
revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges.
</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. The audit includes
a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel
adjustment clause for the period 1995 through 2004. The LPSC Staff issued its audit report in
December 2010. The report recommends the disallowance of $23 million of costs which, with
interest, will total $43 million. $2.3 million of this total relates to a realignment to and
recovery through base rates of certain SO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> costs. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed
comments disputing the findings in the report and requested a hearing. 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. The audit
includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana
for the period from 2003 through 2008. Discovery is in progress, but a procedural schedule has not
been established.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In August 2000 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate a proceeding to audit the fuel
adjustment clause filings of Entergy Louisiana. The time period that is the subject of the audit
was January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2001. The scope of this docket was expanded to include a
review of annual reports on fuel and purchased power transactions with affiliates and a prudence
review of transmission planning issues and to include the years 2002 through 2004. Hearings were
held and in May 2008 the ALJ issued a final recommendation that found in Entergy Louisiana’s favor
on the issues, except for the disallowance of hypothetical SO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> allowance costs included
in affiliate purchases. The ALJ recommended a refund of the SO<sub style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-bottom">2</sub> allowance costs
collected to date and a realignment of these costs into base rates prospectively with an
amortization of the refunded amount through base rates over a five-year period. The LPSC issued an
order in December 2008 affirming the ALJ’s recommendation. Entergy Louisiana recorded a provision
for the disallowance, including interest, and refunded approximately $7 million to customers in
2009.
</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. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed
through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009.
Discovery is in progress, but a procedural schedule has not been established.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><u>Entergy Mississippi</u>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Entergy Mississippi’s rate schedules include an energy cost recovery rider that is adjusted
quarterly to reflect accumulated over- or under-recoveries from the second prior quarter. Entergy
Mississippi’s fuel cost recoveries are subject to annual audits conducted pursuant to the authority
of the MPSC.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In October 2008 the MPSC issued an order directing Entergy Mississippi and Entergy Services,
Inc. to provide documents associated with fuel adjustment clause litigation in Louisiana involving
Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans, and in January 2009 issued an order requiring Entergy
Mississippi to provide additional information related to the long-term Evangeline gas contract that
had been an issue in the fuel adjustment clause litigation in Louisiana. Entergy Mississippi and
Entergy Services filed a response to the MPSC order stating that gas from the Evangeline gas
contract had been sold into the Entergy System exchange and had an effect on the costs paid by
Entergy Mississippi’s customers. Further proceedings have not been scheduled.
</div>
<!-- Folio -->
<!-- /Folio -->
</div>
<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<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">Mississippi Attorney General Complaint
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against
Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, Inc., and Entergy Power, Inc. alleging,
among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair
dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The litigation is wide ranging and relates
to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in
Mississippi to meet electricity demand. Entergy believes the complaint is unfounded. On December
29, 2008, the defendant Entergy companies filed to remove the attorney general’s suit to U.S.
District Court (the forum that Entergy believes is appropriate to resolve the types of federal
issues raised in the suit), where it is currently pending, and additionally answered the complaint
and filed a counter-claim for relief based upon the Mississippi Public Utilities Act and the
Federal Power Act. The Mississippi attorney general has filed a pleading seeking to remand the
matter to state court. In May 2009, the defendant Entergy companies filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings asserting grounds of federal preemption, the exclusive jurisdiction of the MPSC, and
factual errors in the attorney general’s complaint.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><u>Entergy New Orleans</u>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Entergy New Orleans’s electric rate schedules include a fuel adjustment tariff designed to
reflect no more than targeted fuel and purchased power costs, adjusted by a surcharge or credit for
deferred fuel expense arising from the monthly reconciliation of actual fuel and purchased power
costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges. In June
2006 the City Council authorized the recovery of all Grand Gulf costs through Entergy New Orleans’s
fuel adjustment clause (a significant portion of Grand Gulf costs was previously recovered through
base rates), and continued that authorization in approving the October 2006 formula rate plan
filing settlement. Effective June 2009, the majority of Grand Gulf costs were realigned to base
rates and are no longer flowed through the fuel adjustment clause.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Entergy New Orleans’s gas rate schedules include a purchased gas adjustment to reflect
estimated gas costs for the billing month, adjusted by a surcharge or credit similar to that
included in the electric fuel adjustment clause, including carrying charges.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><u>Entergy Texas</u>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Entergy Texas’s rate schedules include a fixed fuel factor to recover fuel and purchased power
costs, including carrying charges, not recovered in base rates. Semi-annual revisions of the fixed
fuel factor are made in March and September based on the market price of natural gas and changes in
fuel mix. The amounts collected under Entergy Texas’s fixed fuel factor and any interim surcharge
or refund are subject to fuel reconciliation proceedings before the PUCT.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In October 2007, Entergy Texas filed a request with the PUCT to refund $45.6 million,
including interest, of fuel cost recovery over-collections through September 2007. In January
2008, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a stipulation and settlement agreement among the parties
that updated the over-collection balance through November 2007 and established a refund amount,
including interest, of $71 million. The PUCT approved the agreement in February 2008. The refund
was made over a two-month period beginning February 2008, but was reduced by $10.3 million of
under-recovered incremental purchased capacity costs.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     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. 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). The PUCT and FERC decisions are now final.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     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 for most customers over a three-month period beginning July 2009.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     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. Pursuant to a stipulation among the various parties, the PUCT issued an order approving a
refund of $87.8 million, including interest, of fuel cost recovery overcollections through October
2009. The refund was made for most customers over a three-month period beginning January 2010.
</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 was 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: 6pt">     In December 2010, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to refund approximately $52
million, including interest, of fuel cost recovery over-collections through October 2010. Pursuant
to a stipulation among the parties that was approved on an interim basis and is pending final
action by the PUCT, Entergy Texas will refund over-collections of approximately $72.7 million
through November 2010. The refund will be made for most customers over a three-month period
beginning with the February 2011 billing cycle.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Entergy Texas’s December 2009 rate case filing, which is discussed below, also included a
request to reconcile $1.8 billion of fuel and purchased power costs covering the period April 2007
through June 2009.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><u><b>Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators</b></u>
</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"><u>Entergy Arkansas January 2009 Ice Storm</u>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     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 5 to the financial statements for a discussion of the August
2010 issuance of the securitization bonds.
</div>
<!-- Folio -->
<!-- /Folio -->
</div>
<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<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: 12pt"><b>Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana</b>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><u>Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike</u>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     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 below. 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.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In December 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. 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">     In July 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">     In July 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: 6pt"><u>Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita</u>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In August and September 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused catastrophic damage to large
portions of the Utility’s service territories in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, including the
effect of extensive flooding that resulted from levee breaks in and around the greater New Orleans
area. The storms and flooding resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to electric
distribution, transmission, and generation and gas infrastructure, and the loss of sales and
customers due to mandatory evacuations and the destruction of homes and businesses.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In March 2008, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, and the Louisiana Utilities
Restoration Corporation (LURC), an instrumentality of the State of Louisiana, filed at the LPSC an
application requesting that the LPSC grant financing orders authorizing the financing of Entergy
Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs
pursuant to Act 55 of the Louisiana Legislature (Act 55 financings). The Act 55 financings are
expected to produce additional customer benefits as compared to traditional securitization.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana also filed an application requesting LPSC
approval for ancillary issues including the mechanism to flow charges and savings to customers via
a Storm Cost Offset rider. On April 8, 2008, the Louisiana Public Facilities Authority (LPFA),
which is the issuer of the bonds pursuant to the Act 55 financings, approved requests for the Act
55 financings. On April 10, 2008, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC
Staff filed with the LPSC an uncontested stipulated settlement that includes Entergy Gulf States
Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana’s proposals under the Act 55 financings, which includes a
commitment to pass on to customers a minimum of $10 million and $30 million of customer benefits,
respectively, through prospective annual rate reductions of $2 million and $6 million for five
years. On April 16, 2008, the LPSC approved the settlement and issued two financing orders and one
ratemaking order intended to facilitate implementation of the Act 55 financings. In May 2008, the
Louisiana State Bond Commission granted final approval of the Act 55 financings.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In July 2008 the LPFA issued $687.7 million in bonds under the aforementioned Act 55. From
the $679 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LPFA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $152 million
in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $527
million directly to Entergy Louisiana. From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from
the LURC, Entergy Louisiana invested $545 million, including $17.8 million that was withdrawn from
the restricted escrow account as approved by the April 16, 2008 LPSC orders, in exchange for
5,449,861.85 Class A preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company
LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy, that carry a 10% annual distribution rate.
Distributions are payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2008 and 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">     In August 2008 the LPFA issued $278.4 million in bonds under the aforementioned Act 55. From
the $274.7 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LPFA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $87 million
in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and
transferred $187.7 million
directly to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Gulf
States Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana invested $189.4 million, including
$1.7 million that was withdrawn from the
restricted escrow account as approved by the April 16,
2008 LPSC orders, in exchange for 1,893,918.39 Class A preferred, non-voting, membership interest
units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC that carry a 10% annual distribution rate. Distributions are
payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2008 and 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 LPFA, 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,
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue
because they are merely acting as the billing and collection agent for the state.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Entergy New Orleans</b>
</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. 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>Entergy Texas</b>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><u>Hurricane Ike and Hurricane Gustav</u>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Entergy Texas filed an application 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’s 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 5 to the financial statements for a discussion of the November 2009
issuance of the securitization bonds.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><u><b>Little Gypsy Repowering Project</b></u> (Entergy and Entergy Louisiana)
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In April 2007, Entergy Louisiana announced that it intended to pursue the solid fuel
repowering of a 538 MW unit at its Little Gypsy plant. In March 2009 the LPSC voted in favor of a
motion directing Entergy Louisiana to temporarily suspend the repowering project and, based upon an
analysis of the project’s economic viability, to make a recommendation regarding whether to proceed
with the project. This action was based upon a number of factors including the recent decline in
natural gas prices, as well as environmental concerns, the unknown costs of carbon legislation and
changes in the capital/financial markets. In April 2009, Entergy Louisiana complied with the
LPSC’s directive and recommended that the project be suspended for an extended period of time of
three years or more. In May 2009 the LPSC issued an order declaring that Entergy Louisiana’s
decision to place the Little Gypsy project into a longer-term suspension of three years or more is
in the public interest and prudent.
</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 project cost recovery over a five-year period. 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 reclassified
the 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. A
hearing on the issues, except for cost allocation among customer classes, was held before the ALJ
in November 2010. In January 2011 all parties conducted a mediation on the disputed issues,
resulting in a settlement of all disputed issues, including cost recovery and cost allocation. The
settlement is expected to be presented to the LPSC for approval in the first quarter 2011.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><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%">
<!-- Begin Table Head -->
<tr valign="bottom">
<td width="23%"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td width="7%"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td width="7%"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td width="60%"> </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> </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> </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> </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 style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"> </td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"> </td>
</tr>
<!-- End Table Head -->
<!-- Begin Table Body -->
<tr valign="bottom">
<td valign="top">
<div style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">Entergy Arkansas
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="top"> </td>
<td align="right" valign="top">10.2</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" valign="top">%</td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left" valign="top"><b>- </b>Current retail
base rates
implemented in the
July 2010 billing
cycle pursuant to a
settlement approved
by the APSC.</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
<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 nowrap="nowrap" colspan="3" align="center" valign="top">9.9%-11.4%
Electric;
10.0%-11.0% Gas
</td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left" valign="top"><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
approved by the
LPSC. <br />
Current retail gas
base rates reflect
the rate
stabilization plan
filing for the 2009
test year ended
September 2009.</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
<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 nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="top"> </td>
<td align="right" valign="top" nowrap="nowrap">9.45%-
11.05</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" valign="top">
%</td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left" valign="top"><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 approved by the
LPSC.</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
<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 nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="top"> </td>
<td align="right" valign="top" nowrap="nowrap">10.79%-
13.05</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" valign="top">
%</td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left" valign="top"><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.</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
<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 nowrap="nowrap" colspan="3" align="center" valign="top">10.7% - 11.5% Electric;
10.25% - 11.25% Gas
</td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left" valign="top"><b>- </b>Current 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.</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
<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 nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="top"> </td>
<td align="right" valign="top">10.125</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" valign="top">%</td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left" valign="top"><b>- </b>Current retail base
rates implemented for
usage beginning August
15, 2010, pursuant to a
settlement of Entergy
Texas’s base rate case
approved by the PUCT.</td>
</tr>
<!-- End Table Body -->
</table>
</div>
<!-- Folio -->
<!-- /Folio -->
</div>
<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<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: 12pt"><b>Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas)</b>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><u>Retail Rates</u>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">2009 Base Rate Filing
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In September 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.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">2006 Base Rate Filing
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In August 2006, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC a request for a change in base rates. In
June 2007, after hearings on the filing, the APSC ordered Entergy Arkansas to reduce its annual
rates by $5 million, and set a return on common equity of 9.9% with a hypothetical common equity
level lower than Entergy Arkansas’s actual capital structure. For the purpose of setting rates,
the APSC disallowed a portion of costs associated with incentive compensation based on financial
measures and all costs associated with Entergy’s stock-based compensation plans, and left Entergy
Arkansas with no mechanism to recover $52 million of costs previously accumulated in Entergy
Arkansas’s storm reserve and $18 million of removal costs associated with the termination of a
lease. The base rate change was implemented effective for bills rendered after June 15, 2007.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Entergy Arkansas sought to overturn the APSC’s decision, but in December 2008 the Arkansas
Court of Appeals upheld almost all aspects of the APSC decision. After considering the progress of
the proceeding in light of the decision of the Court of Appeals, Entergy Arkansas recorded in the
fourth quarter 2008 an approximately $70 million charge to earnings, on both a pre- and after-tax
basis because these are primarily flow-through items, to recognize that the regulatory assets
associated with the storm reserve costs, lease termination removal costs, and stock-based
compensation were no longer probable of recovery. In April 2009 the Arkansas Supreme Court denied
Entergy Arkansas’s petition for review of the Court of Appeals decision.
</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"><u>Formula Rate Plans</u> (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana)
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In March 2005 the LPSC approved a settlement proposal to resolve various dockets covering a
range of issues for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana. The settlement included
the establishment of a three-year formula rate plan for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana that, among
other provisions, establishes a return on common equity mid-point of 10.65% for the initial
three-year term of the plan and permits Entergy Gulf States Louisiana to recover incremental
capacity costs outside of a traditional base rate proceeding. Under the formula rate plan, over-
and under-earnings outside an allowed range of 9.9% to 11.4% are allocated 60% to customers and 40%
to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana made its initial formula rate plan
filing in June 2005. The formula rate plan was subsequently extended one year.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Entergy Louisiana made a rate filing with the LPSC requesting a base rate increase in January
2004. In May 2005 the LPSC approved a settlement that included the adoption of a three-year
formula rate plan, the terms of which included an ROE mid-point of 10.25% for the initial
three-year term of the plan and permit Entergy Louisiana to recover incremental capacity costs
outside of a traditional base rate proceeding. Under the formula rate plan, over- and
under-earnings outside an allowed regulatory range of 9.45% to 11.05% will be allocated 60% to
customers and 40% to Entergy Louisiana. The initial formula rate plan filing was made in May 2006.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     As discussed below the formula rate plans for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy
Louisiana have been extended, with return on common equity provisions consistent with previously
approved provisions, to cover the 2008, 2009, and 2010 test years.
</div>
<!-- Folio -->
<!-- /Folio -->
</div>
<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<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"><u>Retail Rates — Electric</u>
</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">     In October 2009 the LPSC approved a settlement that resolved Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s
2007 test year filing and provided for a new formula rate plan for the 2008, 2009, and 2010 test
years. 10.65% 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%). 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 resulted in a $0.8 million reduction in 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, 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 reflected 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. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the LPSC staff subsequently submitted
a joint report on the 2009 test year filing consistent with these terms and the LPSC approved the
joint report in January 2011.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">(Entergy Louisiana)
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In October 2009 the LPSC approved a settlement that resolved Entergy Louisiana’s 2006 and 2007
test year filings provided for a new formula rate plan for the 2008, 2009, and 2010 test years.
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%).
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Entergy Louisiana was 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. The rate reset, a $2.5 million
increase that included 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 resulted in a $0.1 million reduction in rates effective in the May 2010 billing cycle
and a $0.1 million refund. In addition, Entergy Louisiana moved 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, 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 reflected 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. Entergy Louisiana and
the LPSC staff subsequently submitted a joint report on the 2009 test year filing consistent with
these terms and the LPSC approved the joint report in December 2010.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><u>Retail Rates — Gas</u> (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana)
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In January 2011, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization
plan for the test year ended September 30, 2010. The filing showed an earned return on common
equity of 8.84% and a revenue deficiency of $0.3 million. The sixty-day review and comment period
for this filing remains open.
</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 resulted in no rate change.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)</b>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><u>Formula Rate Plan Filings</u>
</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">     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 (Entergy New Orleans)</b>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><u>Formula Rate Plans and Storm-related Riders</u>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     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
provided for a net $35.3 million reduction in combined fuel and non-fuel electric revenue
requirement, including conversion of a $10.6 million voluntary recovery credit, implemented in
January 2008, to a permanent reduction and substantial realignment of Grand Gulf cost recovery from
fuel to electric base rates, and a $4.95 million gas base rate increase, both effective June 1,
2009, with adjustment of the customer charges for all rate classes. A new three-year formula rate
plan was also adopted, with terms including an 11.1% benchmark electric return on common equity
(ROE) with a +/- 40 basis point bandwidth and a 10.75% benchmark gas ROE with a +/- 50 basis point
bandwidth. Earnings outside the bandwidth reset to the midpoint benchmark 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.
</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 reached a
settlement that resulted in an $18.0 million electric base revenue decrease and zero gas base
revenue change effective with the October 2010 billing cycle. The City Council approved the
settlement in November 2010.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The 2008 rate case settlement also included $3.1 million per year in electric rates to fund
the Energy Smart energy efficiency programs. In September 2009 the City Council approved the
energy efficiency 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.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In June 2006, Entergy New Orleans made its annual formula rate plan filings with the City
Council. The filings presented various alternatives to reflect the effect of Entergy New Orleans’s
lost customers and decreased revenue following Hurricane Katrina. The alternative that Entergy New
Orleans recommended adjusts for lost customers and assumes that the City Council’s June 2006
decision to allow recovery of all Grand Gulf costs through the fuel adjustment clause stays in
place during the rate-effective period (a significant portion of Grand Gulf costs was previously
recovered through base rates).
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     At the same time as it made its formula rate plan filings, Entergy New Orleans also filed with
the City Council a request to implement two storm-related riders. With the first rider, Entergy
New Orleans sought to recover the electric and gas restoration costs that it had actually spent
through March 31, 2006. Entergy New Orleans also proposed semiannual filings to update the rider
for additional restoration spending and also to consider the receipt of CDBG funds or insurance
proceeds that it may receive. With the second rider, Entergy New Orleans sought to establish a
storm reserve to provide for the risk of another storm.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In October 2006, the City Council approved a settlement agreement that resolved Entergy New
Orleans’s rate and storm-related rider filings by providing for phased-in rate increases, while
taking into account with respect to storm restoration costs the anticipated receipt of CDBG funding
as recommended by the Louisiana Recovery Authority. The settlement provided for a 0% increase in
electric base rates through December 2007, with a $3.9 million increase implemented in January
2008. Recovery of all Grand Gulf costs through the fuel adjustment clause was continued. Gas base
rates increased by $4.75 million in November 2006 and increased by an additional $1.5 million in
March 2007 and an additional $4.75 million in November 2007. The settlement called for Entergy New
Orleans to file a base rate case by July 31, 2008, which it did as discussed above. The settlement
agreement discontinued the formula rate plan and the generation performance-based plan but
permitted Entergy New Orleans to file an application to seek authority to implement formula rate
plan mechanisms no sooner than six months following the effective date of the implementation of the
base rates resulting from the July 31, 2008 base rate case. The settlement also authorized a $75
million storm reserve for damage from future storms, which will be created
over a ten-year period through a storm reserve rider beginning in March 2007. These storm reserve
funds will be held in a restricted escrow account.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas)</b>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><u>Retail Rates</u>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     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 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
recommending adjustments that would result in a maximum rate increase, based on the PUCT Staff’s
testimony, of $58 million.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The parties filed a settlement in August 2010 intended to resolve 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%. Baseline values were established
to be used in Entergy Texas’s request for a transmission cost 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 an interim fuel refund. 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 PUCT approved the settlement in December 2010.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><u><b>System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings</b></u>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The Utility operating companies historically have engaged in the coordinated planning,
construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the
System Agreement, which is a rate schedule that has been approved by the FERC. Certain of the
Utility operating companies’ retail regulators and other parties are pursuing litigation involving
the System Agreement at the FERC. The proceedings include challenges to the allocation of costs as
defined by the System Agreement and allegations of imprudence by the Utility operating companies in
their execution of their obligations under the System Agreement.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In June 2005, the FERC issued a decision in the System Agreement litigation that had been
commenced by the LPSC, and essentially affirmed its decision in a December 2005 order on rehearing.
The FERC decision concluded, among other things, that:
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 6pt">
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left">
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="3%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="1%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b>•</b></td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>The System Agreement no longer roughly equalizes total production costs among the
Utility operating companies.</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 6pt">
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left">
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="3%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="1%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b>•</b></td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>In order to reach rough production cost equalization, the FERC imposed a bandwidth
remedy by which each company’s total annual production costs will have to be within +/- 11%
of Entergy System average total annual production costs.</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 6pt">
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left">
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="3%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="1%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b>•</b></td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>In calculating the production costs for this purpose under the FERC’s order, output from
the Vidalia hydroelectric power plant will not reflect the actual Vidalia price for the
year but is priced at that year’s average price paid by Entergy Louisiana for the exchange
of electric energy under Service Schedule MSS-3 of the System Agreement, thereby reducing
the amount of Vidalia costs reflected in the comparison of the Utility operating companies’
total production costs.</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 6pt">
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left">
<tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
<td width="3%" style="background: transparent"> </td>
<td width="1%" nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><b>•</b></td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td>The remedy ordered by FERC in 2005 required no refunds and became effective based on
calendar year 2006 production costs and the first reallocation payments were made in 2007.</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The FERC’s decision reallocates total production costs of the Utility operating companies
whose relative total production costs expressed as a percentage of Entergy System average
production costs are outside an upper
or lower bandwidth. Under the current circumstances, this will be accomplished by payments
from Utility operating companies whose production costs are more than 11% below Entergy System
average production costs to Utility operating companies whose production costs are more than the
Entergy System average production cost, with payments going first to those Utility operating
companies whose total production costs are farthest above the Entergy System average.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Assessing the potential effects of the FERC’s decision requires assumptions regarding the
future total production cost of each Utility operating company, which assumptions include the mix
of solid fuel and gas-fired generation available to each company and the costs of natural gas and
purchased power. Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Texas, and Entergy
Mississippi are more dependent upon gas-fired generation sources than Entergy Arkansas or Entergy
New Orleans. Of these, Entergy Arkansas is the least dependent upon gas-fired generation sources.
Therefore, increases in natural gas prices likely will increase the amount by which Entergy
Arkansas’s total production costs are below the Entergy System average production costs.
</div>
<!-- Folio -->
<!-- /Folio -->
</div>
<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<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">     The LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the AEEC appealed the FERC’s decision to the United States Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Entergy and the City of New Orleans intervened in the various
appeals. The D.C. Circuit issued its decision in April 2008. The D.C. Circuit affirmed the FERC’s
decision in most respects, but remanded the case to the FERC for further proceedings and
reconsideration of its conclusion that it was prohibited from ordering refunds and its
determination to implement the bandwidth remedy commencing with calendar year 2006 production costs
(with the first payments/receipts commencing in June 2007), rather than commencing the remedy on
June 1, 2005. The D.C. Circuit concluded the FERC had failed so far in the proceeding to offer a
reasoned explanation regarding these issues. As discussed below, in December 2009 the FERC
established a paper hearing to determine whether the FERC had the authority and, if so, whether it
would be appropriate to order refunds resulting from changes in the treatment of interruptible load
in the allocation of capacity costs by the Utility operating companies. The FERC also deferred
further action on the question of whether it provided sufficient rationale for not ordering
refunds, and whether it impermissibly delayed implementation of the bandwidth remedy, until
resolution of this paper hearing.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In April 2006, the Utility operating companies filed with the FERC their compliance filing to
implement the provisions of the FERC’s decision. The filing amended the System Agreement to
provide for the calculation of production costs, average production costs, and payments/receipts
among the Utility operating companies to the extent required to maintain rough production cost
equalization pursuant to the FERC’s decision. The FERC accepted the compliance filing in November
2006, with limited modifications. Provisions of the compliance filing as approved by the FERC
include: the first payments commenced in June 2007, rather than earlier; interest is not required
on the unpaid balance; and any payments will be made over seven months, rather than 12. In April
2007, the FERC denied various requests for rehearing, with one exception regarding the issue of
retrospective refunds. That issue will be addressed subsequent to the remanded proceeding
involving the interruptible load decision discussed further below in this section under
“Interruptible Load Proceeding.”
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs</b>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The liabilities and assets for the preliminary estimate of the payments and receipts required
to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2010 production costs were recorded in
December 2010, based on certain year-to-date information. The preliminary estimate was recorded
based on the following estimate of the payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies for
2011.
</div>
<!-- Folio -->
<!-- /Folio -->
</div>
<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">
<div align="left" 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%">
<!-- Begin Table Head -->
<tr valign="bottom">
<td width="88%"> </td>
<td width="5%"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td width="5%"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom">
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="2"><b>Payments or</b></td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom">
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="2" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"><b>(Receipts)</b></td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom">
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="center" colspan="2">(In Millions)</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<!-- End Table Head -->
<!-- Begin Table Body -->
<tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Entergy Arkansas
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">52</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Entergy Gulf States Louisiana
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">—</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Entergy Louisiana
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">—</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Entergy Mississippi
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td align="right">($37</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap">)</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Entergy New Orleans
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td align="right">($15</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap">)</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Entergy Texas
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">—</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<!-- End Table Body -->
</table>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">The actual payments/receipts for 2011, based on calendar year 2010 production costs, will not be
calculated until the Utility operating companies’ FERC Form 1s have been filed. Once the
calculation is completed, it will be filed at the FERC. The level of any payments and receipts is
significantly affected by a number of factors, including, among others, weather, the price of
alternative fuels, the operating characteristics of the Entergy System generating fleet, and
multiple factors affecting the calculation of the non-fuel related revenue requirement components
of the total production costs, such as plant investment.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates</b>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Each May since 2007 Entergy has filed with the FERC the rates to implement the FERC’s orders
in the System Agreement proceeding. These filings show the following payments/receipts among the
Utility operating companies are necessary to achieve rough production cost equalization as defined
by the FERC’s orders:
</div>
<div align="center">
<table style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left" cellspacing="0" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">
<!-- Begin Table Head -->
<tr valign="bottom">
<td width="52%"> </td>
<td width="5%"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td width="5%"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td width="5%"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td width="5%"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td width="5%"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td width="5%"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td width="5%"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
<td width="5%"> </td>
<td width="1%"> </td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom">
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="2"><b>2007 Payments</b></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="2"><b>2008 Payments</b></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="2"><b>2009 Payments</b></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="2"><b>2010 Payments</b></td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom">
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="2"><b>or (Receipts) Based</b></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="2"><b>or (Receipts) Based</b></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="2"><b>or (Receipts) Based</b></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="2"><b>or (Receipts) Based</b></td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom">
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="2" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"><b>on 2006 Costs</b></td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"> </td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="2" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"><b>on 2007 Costs</b></td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"> </td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="2" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"><b>on 2008 Costs</b></td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"> </td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="2" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"><b>on 2009 Costs</b></td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom">
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="6">(In Millions)</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<!-- End Table Head -->
<!-- Begin Table Body -->
<tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Entergy Arkansas
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">252</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">252</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">390</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">41</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Entergy Gulf
States Louisiana
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td align="right">($120</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap">)</td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td align="right">($124</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap">)</td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td align="right">($107</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap">)</td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">—</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Entergy Louisiana
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td align="right">($91</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap">)</td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td align="right">($36</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap">)</td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td align="right">($140</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap">)</td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td align="right">($22</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap">)</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Entergy Mississippi
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td align="right">($41</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap">)</td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td align="right">($20</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap">)</td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td align="right">($24</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap">)</td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td align="right">($19</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap">)</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Entergy New Orleans
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">—</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td align="right">($7</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap">)</td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">—</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">—</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="bottom">
<td>
<div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Entergy Texas
</div></td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td align="right">($30</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap">)</td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td align="right">($65</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap">)</td>
<td> </td>
<td nowrap="nowrap" align="left"> </td>
<td align="right">($119</td>
<td nowrap="nowrap">)</td>
<td> </td>
<td align="left">$</td>
<td align="right">—</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<!-- End Table Body -->
</table>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The APSC has approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the
retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas. Management believes that any changes in
the allocation of production costs resulting from the FERC’s decision and related retail
proceedings should result in similar rate changes for retail customers, subject to specific
circumstances that have caused trapped costs. See “<b>Fuel and purchased power cost recovery</b>,
<u>Entergy Texas</u>,” above for discussion of a PUCT decision that resulted in $18.6 million of
trapped costs between Entergy’s Texas and Louisiana jurisdictions. See “<u>2007 Rate Filing Based
on Calendar Year 2006 Production Costs</u><b>” </b>below for a discussion of a FERC decision that could
result in $14.5 million of trapped costs at Entergy Arkansas.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Based on the FERC’s April 27, 2007 order on rehearing that is discussed above, in the second
quarter 2007 Entergy Arkansas recorded accounts payable and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy
Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy Texas recorded accounts receivable to reflect the rough
production cost equalization payments and receipts required to implement the FERC’s remedy based on
calendar year 2006 production costs. Entergy Arkansas recorded a corresponding regulatory asset
for its right to collect the payments from its customers, and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana,
Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy Texas recorded corresponding regulatory
liabilities for their obligations to pass the receipts on to their customers. The companies
have followed this same accounting practice each year since then. The regulatory
asset and liabilities are shown as “System Agreement cost equalization” on the respective balance
sheets.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><u>2007 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2006 Production Costs</u>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Several parties intervened in the 2007 rate proceeding at the FERC, including the APSC, the
MPSC, the Council, and the LPSC, which have also filed protests. The PUCT also intervened.
Intervenor testimony was filed in which the intervenors and also the FERC Staff advocated a number
of positions on issues that affect the level of production costs the individual Utility operating
companies are permitted to reflect in the bandwidth calculation, including the level of
depreciation and decommissioning expense for nuclear facilities. The effect of the various
positions would be to reallocate costs among the Utility operating companies. The Utility
operating companies filed rebuttal testimony explaining why the bandwidth payments are properly
recoverable under the AmerenUE contract, and explaining why the positions of FERC Staff and
intervenors on the other issues should be rejected. A hearing in this proceeding concluded in July
2008, and the ALJ issued an initial decision in September 2008. The ALJ’s initial decision
concludes, among other things, that: (1) the decisions to not exercise Entergy Arkansas’s option to
purchase the Independence plant in 1996 and 1997 were prudent; (2) Entergy Arkansas properly flowed
a portion of the bandwidth payments through to AmerenUE in accordance with the wholesale power
contract; and (3) the level of nuclear depreciation and decommissioning expense reflected in the
bandwidth calculation should be calculated based on NRC-authorized license life, rather than the
nuclear depreciation and decommissioning expense authorized by the retail regulators for purposes
of retail ratemaking. Following briefing by the parties, the matter was submitted to the FERC for
decision. On January 11, 2010, the FERC issued its decision both affirming and
overturning certain of the ALJ’s rulings, including overturning the decision on nuclear
depreciation and decommissioning expense. The FERC’s conclusion related to the AmerenUE contract
does not permit Entergy Arkansas to recover a portion of its bandwidth payment from AmerenUE. The
Utility operating companies requested rehearing of that portion of the decision and requested
clarification on certain other portions of the decision.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     AmerenUE argued that its current wholesale power contract with Entergy Arkansas, pursuant to
which Entergy Arkansas sells power to AmerenUE, does not permit Entergy Arkansas to flow through to
AmerenUE any portion of Entergy Arkansas’s bandwidth payment. According to AmerenUE, Entergy
Arkansas has sought to collect from AmerenUE approximately $14.5 million of the 2007 Entergy
Arkansas bandwidth payment. The AmerenUE contract expired in August 2009. In April 2008, AmerenUE
filed a complaint with the FERC seeking refunds of this amount, plus interest, in the event the
FERC ultimately determines that bandwidth payments are not properly recovered under the AmerenUE
contract. In response to the FERC’s decision discussed in the previous paragraph, Entergy Arkansas
recorded a regulatory provision in the fourth quarter 2009 for a potential refund to AmerenUE.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><u>2008 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2007 Production Costs</u>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Several parties intervened in the 2008 rate proceeding at the FERC, including the APSC, the
LPSC, and AmerenUE, which have also filed protests. Several other parties, including the MPSC and
the City Council, have intervened in the proceeding without filing a protest. In direct testimony
filed on January 9, 2009, certain intervenors and also the FERC staff advocated a number of
positions on issues that affect the level of production costs the individual Utility operating
companies are permitted to reflect in the bandwidth calculation, including the level of
depreciation and decommissioning expense for the nuclear and fossil-fueled generating facilities.
The effect of these various positions would be to reallocate costs among the Utility operating
companies. In addition, three issues were raised alleging imprudence by the Utility operating
companies, including whether the Utility operating companies had properly reflected generating
units’ minimum operating levels for purposes of making unit commitment and dispatch decisions,
whether Entergy Arkansas’s sales to third parties from its retained share of the Grand Gulf nuclear
facility were reasonable, prudent, and non-discriminatory, and whether Entergy Louisiana’s
long-term Evangeline gas purchase contract was prudent and reasonable.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The parties reached a partial settlement agreement of certain of the issues initially raised
in this proceeding. The partial settlement agreement was conditioned on the FERC accepting the
agreement without modification or
condition, which the FERC did on August 24, 2009. A hearing on
the remaining issues in the proceeding was completed in June 2009, and in September 2009 the ALJ
issued an initial decision. The initial decision affirms Entergy’s position in the filing, except
for two issues that may result in a reallocation of costs among the Utility operating companies.
Entergy, the APSC, the LPSC, and the MPSC have submitted briefs on exceptions in the proceeding,
and the matter has been submitted to the FERC for decision.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><u>2009 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2008 Production Costs</u>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Several parties intervened in the 2009 rate proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC and
Ameren, which have also filed protests. In July 2009 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates
for filing, effective June 1, 2009, subject to refund, and set the proceeding for hearing and
settlement procedures. Settlement procedures were terminated and a hearing before the ALJ was held
in April 2010. In August 2010 the ALJ issued an initial decision. The initial decision
substantially affirms Entergy’s position in the filing, except for one issue that may result in
some reallocation of costs among the Utility operating companies. The LPSC, the FERC trial staff,
and Entergy have submitted briefs on exceptions in the proceeding.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><u>2010 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2009 Production Costs</u>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In May 2010, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2010 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders
in the System Agreement proceeding, and supplemented the filing in September 2010. Several parties
intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC and the City Council, which have also
filed protests. In July 2010 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June
1, 2010, subject to refund, and set the proceeding for hearing and settlement procedures.
Settlement procedures have been terminated, and the ALJ scheduled hearings to begin in March 2011,
with an initial decision scheduled for July 2011. Subsequently, in January 2011 the ALJ issued an
order directing the parties and FERC staff to show cause why this proceeding should not be stayed
pending the issuance of FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before
the FERC on review. Briefing on the issue concluded on February 14, 2011. A hearing on the show
cause order is scheduled for March 3, 2011.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Interruptible Load Proceeding</b>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In April 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in the LPSC’s
appeal of the FERC’s March 2004 and April 2005 orders related to the treatment under the System
Agreement of the Utility operating companies’ interruptible loads. In its opinion, the D.C.
Circuit concluded that the FERC (1) acted arbitrarily and capriciously by allowing the Utility
operating companies to phase-in the effects of the elimination of the interruptible load over a
12-month period of time; (2) failed to adequately explain why refunds could not be ordered under
Section 206(c) of the Federal Power Act; and (3) exercised appropriately its discretion to defer
addressing the cost of sulfur dioxide allowances until a later time. The D.C. Circuit remanded the
matter to the FERC for a more considered determination on the issue of refunds. The FERC issued
its order on remand in September 2007, in which it directed Entergy to make a compliance filing
removing all interruptible load from the computation of peak load responsibility commencing April
1, 2004 and to issue any necessary refunds to reflect this change. In addition, the order directed
the Utility operating companies to make refunds for the period May 1995 through July 1996. In
November 2007 the Utility operating companies filed a refund report describing the refunds to be
issued pursuant to the FERC’s orders. The LPSC filed a protest to the refund report in December
2007, and the Utility operating companies filed an answer to the protest in January 2008. The
refunds were made in October 2008 by the Utility operating companies that owed refunds to the
Utility operating companies that were due a refund under the decision. The APSC and the Utility
operating companies appealed the FERC decisions to the D.C. Circuit. Because of its refund
obligation to its customers as a result of this proceeding and a related LPSC proceeding, Entergy
Louisiana recorded provisions during 2008 of approximately $16 million, including interest, for
rate refunds. The refunds were made in the fourth quarter 2009.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Following the filing of petitioners’ initial briefs, the FERC filed a motion requesting the
D.C. Circuit hold the appeal of the FERC’s decisions ordering refunds in the interruptible load
proceeding in abeyance and remand the record to the FERC. The D.C. Circuit granted the FERC’s
unopposed motion on June 24, 2009, and directed the
FERC to file status reports at 60-day intervals
beginning August 24, 2009. The D.C. Circuit also directed the parties to file motions to govern
future proceedings in the case within 30 days of the completion of the FERC proceedings. In
December 2009 the FERC established a paper hearing to determine whether the FERC had the authority
and, if so, whether it would be appropriate to order refunds resulting from changes in the
treatment of interruptible load in the allocation of capacity costs by the Utility operating
companies. In August 2010 the FERC issued an order stating that it has the authority and refunds
are appropriate. The APSC, MPSC, and Entergy have requested rehearing of the FERC’s decision. In
September 2010, the FERC set for hearing and settlement judge procedures the Utility operating
companies’ calculation of the refunds for the 15-month refund period of May 14, 1995 through August
13, 1996, as contained in the November 2007 refund report. The purpose of the hearing is to
determine whether the refund amounts for such period were calculated in a just and reasonable
manner. The settlement proceedings are ongoing.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Entergy Arkansas filed a request with the APSC for recovery of the refund paid to its
customers and the APSC staff has filed a motion to dismiss the request. A procedural schedule has
not been set in the proceeding.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><u><b>Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding</b></u>
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In June 2009, the LPSC filed a complaint requesting that the FERC determine that certain of
Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the
System Agreement that allocate the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently
denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System
generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibits sales to
third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility
operating companies. The LPSC’s complaint challenges sales made beginning in 2002 and requests
refunds. On July 20, 2009, the Utility operating companies filed a response to the complaint
requesting that the FERC dismiss the complaint on the merits without hearing because the LPSC has
failed to meet its burden of showing any violation of the System Agreement and failed to produce
any evidence of imprudent action by the Entergy System. In their response, the Utility operating
companies explained that the System Agreement clearly contemplates that the Utility operating
companies may make sales to third parties for their own account, subject to the requirement that
those sales be included in the load (or load shape) for the applicable Utility operating company.
The response further explains that the FERC already has determined that Entergy Arkansas’s
short-term wholesale sales did not trigger the “right-of-first-refusal” provision of the System
Agreement. While the D.C. Circuit recently determined that the “right-of-first-refusal” issue was
not properly before the FERC at the time of its earlier decision on the issue, the LPSC has raised
no additional claims or facts that would warrant the FERC reaching a different conclusion. On
December 7, 2009, the FERC issued an order setting the matter for hearing and settlement
procedures.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The LPSC filed direct testimony in the proceeding alleging, among other things, (1) that
Entergy violated the System Agreement by permitting Entergy Arkansas to make non-requirements sales
to non-affiliated third parties rather than making such energy available to the other Utility
operating companies’ customers; and (2) that over the period 2000 — 2009, these non-requirements
sales caused harm to the Utility operating companies’ customers of $144 million and these customers
should be compensated for this harm by Entergy. In subsequent testimony, the LPSC modified its
original damages claim in favor of quantifying damages by re-running intra-system bills, which has
not occurred. The Utility operating companies believe the LPSC’s allegations are without merit. A
hearing in the matter was held in August 2010.
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In December 2010 the ALJ issued an initial decision. The ALJ found that the System Agreement
allowed for Entergy Arkansas to make the sales to third parties but concluded that the sales should
be accounted for in the same manner as joint account sales. The ALJ concluded that “shareholders”
should make refunds of the damages to the Utility operating companies, along with interest.
Entergy Corporation, or an Entergy Corporation subsidiary, is the shareholder of each of the
Utility operating companies. Entergy disagrees with several aspects of the ALJ’s
initial decision and in January 2011 filed with the FERC exceptions to the decision. FERC
consideration of the initial decision is pending. Entergy is unable to estimate the potential
damages in this matter because certain aspects of how the refunds would be calculated require
clarification by the FERC.
</div>
<!-- Folio -->
<!-- /Folio -->
</div>
<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<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"><u><b>LPSC Interruptible Load Proceeding</b></u> (Entergy Louisiana)
</div>
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     As discussed above, the FERC issued orders in September 2005 and 2007 in which it directed
Entergy to remove all interruptible load from certain computations of peak load responsibility
commencing April 1, 2004 and to issue any necessary refunds to reflect this change. In addition,
in September 2008 the FERC directed the Utility operating companies to make refunds for the period
May 1995 through July 1996. In October 2009 the LPSC issued an order approving the flow through to
retail rates of the LPSC-jurisdictional portion of the payments and credits resulting from the
FERC’s orders that had not yet been flowed through to retail rates, which required a net refund to
Entergy Louisiana retail customers of $17.6 million, including interest. The refunds were made in
the fourth quarter 2009. Of this amount, $5.4 million was refunded subject to adjustment in the
event that future action by the FERC or the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals results in a reversal or
change in the amount of the refunds ordered by the FERC in September 2008.
</div>
<!-- Folio -->
<!-- /Folio -->
</div>
<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">
<div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 0pt">
</div>
</div>
<!--DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd" -->
<!-- Begin Block Tagged NotefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherus-types:textBlockItemTypestringThis 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
falsefalse12Rate and Regulatory MattersUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownfalsetrue