Rate And Regulatory Matters (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Details Of Other Regulatory Assets

Entergy

	2017		2016
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)		$2,642.3		$2,635.5
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)	746.0		677.2
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 – Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators) (Note 5)	558.9		637.0
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)	436.5		353.9
Opportunity Sales - recovery will be determined after final order in proceeding (Note 2 - Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding)	109.8		—
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined by retail regulators	86.4		22.1
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	82.9		91.4
Little Gypsy costs – recovered through securitization (Note 5 – Entergy Louisiana Securitization Bonds - Little Gypsy)	73.7		100.0
Transition to competition costs - recovered over a 15-year period through February 2021	37.7		47.9
New nuclear generation development costs (Note 2 - New Nuclear Generation Development Costs) (b)	36.4		43.7
Other	125.1		161.2
Entergy Total		$4,935.7		$4,769.9

Schedule of Regulatory Liabilities

Entergy

	2017		2016
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 16) (a)		$989.3		$735.5
Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8) (b)	151.6		202.4
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators) (b)	124.8		165.5
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback - (Note 10 - Sale and Leaseback Transactions)	67.9		67.9
Business combination guaranteed customer benefits - returned to customers through retail rates and fuel rates beginning December 2015 through November 2024 (Note 2 - Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination)	65.8		83.5
Entergy Arkansas’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and the FERC	44.4		44.4
Asset retirement obligation - return to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)	36.7		32.7
Removal costs - returned to customers through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)	32.4		53.9
Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - amortized and credited through the Unit Power Sales Agreement	32.1		39.3
Waterford 3 replacement steam generator provision (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	—		68.0
Other	43.5		79.8
Entergy Total		$1,588.5		$1,572.9

Entergy Louisiana [Member]

Details Of Other Regulatory Assets

Entergy Louisiana

	2017		2016
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)		$724.6		$715.7
Asset Retirement Obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)	218.6		199.4
Little Gypsy costs – recovered through securitization (Note 5 – Entergy Louisiana Securitization Bonds - Little Gypsy)	71.4		97.8
New nuclear generation development costs - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2014 through November 2022 (Note 2 - New Nuclear Generation Development Costs) (b)	35.8		43.1
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	24.7		27.0
Storm damage costs - recovered through retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators)	14.3		—
Business combination external costs deferral - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2015 through November 2025 (b)	14.1		15.2
River Bend AFUDC - recovered through August 2025 (Note 1 – River Bend AFUDC)	12.9		14.8
Other	29.4		55.1
Entergy Louisiana Total		$1,145.8		$1,168.1

Schedule of Regulatory Liabilities

Entergy Louisiana

	2017		2016
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 16) (a)		$323.7		$235.4
Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8) (b)	151.6		202.4
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators) (b)	124.8		165.5
Business combination guaranteed customer benefits - returned to customers through retail rates and fuel rates beginning December 2015 through November 2024 (Note 2 - Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination)	65.8		83.5
Gas hedging costs - refunded through fuel rates (Note 15 - Derivatives)	—		10.9
Asset Retirement Obligation - return to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)	36.7		32.7
Removal costs - returned to customers through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)	32.4		53.9
Waterford 3 replacement steam generator provision (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	—		68.0
Other	26.1		28.7
Entergy Louisiana Total		$761.1		$881.0

The Amount Of Deferred Fuel Costs, That Entergy Expects To Recover (Or Return To Customers) Through Fuel Mechanisms, Subject To Subsequent Regulatory Review

The table below shows the amount of deferred fuel costs as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 that Entergy expects to recover (or return to customers) through fuel mechanisms, subject to subsequent regulatory review.

	2017			2016
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas (a)		$130.4			$163.6
Entergy Louisiana (b)		$96.7			$119.9
Entergy Mississippi		$32.4			$7.0
Entergy New Orleans (b)		($3.7	)		$8.9
Entergy Texas		($67.3	)		($54.5	)

(a) Includes $67.1 million in 2017 and $66.9 million in 2016 of fuel and purchased power costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

(b) Includes $168.1 million in each year for Entergy Louisiana and $4.1 million in each year 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 recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

Estimate Of Payments Or Receipts Among Utility Operating Companies

The filing shows the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$156
Entergy Louisiana	($75)
Entergy Mississippi	($33)
Entergy New Orleans	($5)
Entergy Texas	($43)

Entergy Arkansas made its payment in January 2012.  In February 2012, Entergy Arkansas filed for an interim adjustment to its production cost allocation rider requesting that the $156 million be collected from customers over the 22-month period from March 2012 through December 2013.  In March 2012 the APSC issued an order stating that the payment can be recovered from retail customers through the production cost allocation rider, subject to refund.  The LPSC and the APSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s October 2011 order.  

In February 2014 the FERC issued a rehearing order addressing its October 2011 order. The FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing on the issues of whether the bandwidth remedy should be made effective earlier than June 1, 2005, and whether refunds should be ordered for the 20-month refund effective period. The FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request on the issue of interest on the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period, requiring that interest be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date those bandwidth payments/receipts are made. Also in February 2014 the FERC issued an order rejecting the December 2011 compliance filing that calculated the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. The FERC order required a new compliance filing that calculates the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period based on monthly data for the seven individual months including interest pursuant to the February 2014 rehearing order. Entergy sought rehearing of the February 2014 order with respect to the FERC’s determinations regarding interest. In April 2014 the LPSC filed a petition for review of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In August 2017 the D.C. Circuit issued a decision addressing the LPSC’s appeal of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders. On the issue of the FERC’s implementation of the prospective remedy as of June 2005 and whether the bandwidth remedy should be extended for an additional 17 months in years 2004-2005, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the FERC’s implementation of the remedy and denied the LPSC’s appeal. On the issue of whether the operating companies should be required to issue refunds for the 20-month period from September 2001 to May 2003, the D.C. Circuit granted the FERC’s request for agency reconsideration and remanded that issue back to the FERC for further proceedings as requested by all parties to the appeal.

In April and May 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC an updated compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s February 2014 orders.  The filing shows the following net payments and receipts, including interest, among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$68
Entergy Louisiana	($10)
Entergy Mississippi	($11)
Entergy New Orleans	$2
Entergy Texas	($49)

These payments were made in May 2014. The LPSC, City Council, and APSC filed protests.

Payments/Receipts Among The Utility Operating Companies To Achieve Rough Production Cost Equalization

These filings showed the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies were necessary to achieve rough production cost equalization as defined by the FERC’s orders:

	Payments (Receipts)
	2007			2008			2009			2010			2011			2012			2013			2014
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas		$252			$252			$390			$41			$77			$41			$—			$—
Entergy Louisiana		($211	)		($160	)		($247	)		($22	)		($12	)		($41	)		$—			$—
Entergy Mississippi		($41	)		($20	)		($24	)		($19	)		($40	)		$—			$—			$—
Entergy New Orleans		$—			($7	)		$—			$—			($25	)		$—			($15	)		($15	)
Entergy Texas		($30	)		($65	)		($119	)		$—			$—			$—			$15			$15

2010 Rate Filing Resulting Payment (Receipt) for Reclassification of Production Costs [Table Text Block]

The result of the true-up payments and receipts for the recalculation of production costs resulted in the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$2
Entergy Louisiana	$6
Entergy Mississippi	($4)
Entergy New Orleans	($1)
Entergy Texas	($3)

Entergy New Orleans [Member]

Details Of Other Regulatory Assets

Entergy New Orleans

	2017		2016
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)		$102.8		$108.8
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through retail rates and securitization (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators)	82.3		93.6
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)	44.8		40.1
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined monthly or annually	4.4		4.3
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)	4.3		4.2
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	3.0		3.4
Rate case costs - recovered over a 6-year period through September 2021 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)	2.6		3.0
Michoud plant maintenance – recovered over a 7-year period through September 2018	1.4		3.3
Other	5.8		7.4
Entergy New Orleans Total		$251.4		$268.1

The Amount Of Deferred Fuel Costs, That Entergy Expects To Recover (Or Return To Customers) Through Fuel Mechanisms, Subject To Subsequent Regulatory Review

The table below shows the amount of deferred fuel costs as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 that Entergy expects to recover (or return to customers) through fuel mechanisms, subject to subsequent regulatory review.

	2017			2016
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas (a)		$130.4			$163.6
Entergy Louisiana (b)		$96.7			$119.9
Entergy Mississippi		$32.4			$7.0
Entergy New Orleans (b)		($3.7	)		$8.9
Entergy Texas		($67.3	)		($54.5	)

(a) Includes $67.1 million in 2017 and $66.9 million in 2016 of fuel and purchased power costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

(b) Includes $168.1 million in each year for Entergy Louisiana and $4.1 million in each year 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 recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

Estimate Of Payments Or Receipts Among Utility Operating Companies

The filing shows the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$156
Entergy Louisiana	($75)
Entergy Mississippi	($33)
Entergy New Orleans	($5)
Entergy Texas	($43)

Entergy Arkansas made its payment in January 2012.  In February 2012, Entergy Arkansas filed for an interim adjustment to its production cost allocation rider requesting that the $156 million be collected from customers over the 22-month period from March 2012 through December 2013.  In March 2012 the APSC issued an order stating that the payment can be recovered from retail customers through the production cost allocation rider, subject to refund.  The LPSC and the APSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s October 2011 order.  

In February 2014 the FERC issued a rehearing order addressing its October 2011 order. The FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing on the issues of whether the bandwidth remedy should be made effective earlier than June 1, 2005, and whether refunds should be ordered for the 20-month refund effective period. The FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request on the issue of interest on the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period, requiring that interest be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date those bandwidth payments/receipts are made. Also in February 2014 the FERC issued an order rejecting the December 2011 compliance filing that calculated the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. The FERC order required a new compliance filing that calculates the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period based on monthly data for the seven individual months including interest pursuant to the February 2014 rehearing order. Entergy sought rehearing of the February 2014 order with respect to the FERC’s determinations regarding interest. In April 2014 the LPSC filed a petition for review of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In August 2017 the D.C. Circuit issued a decision addressing the LPSC’s appeal of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders. On the issue of the FERC’s implementation of the prospective remedy as of June 2005 and whether the bandwidth remedy should be extended for an additional 17 months in years 2004-2005, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the FERC’s implementation of the remedy and denied the LPSC’s appeal. On the issue of whether the operating companies should be required to issue refunds for the 20-month period from September 2001 to May 2003, the D.C. Circuit granted the FERC’s request for agency reconsideration and remanded that issue back to the FERC for further proceedings as requested by all parties to the appeal.

In April and May 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC an updated compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s February 2014 orders.  The filing shows the following net payments and receipts, including interest, among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$68
Entergy Louisiana	($10)
Entergy Mississippi	($11)
Entergy New Orleans	$2
Entergy Texas	($49)

These payments were made in May 2014. The LPSC, City Council, and APSC filed protests.

Payments/Receipts Among The Utility Operating Companies To Achieve Rough Production Cost Equalization

These filings showed the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies were necessary to achieve rough production cost equalization as defined by the FERC’s orders:

	Payments (Receipts)
	2007			2008			2009			2010			2011			2012			2013			2014
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas		$252			$252			$390			$41			$77			$41			$—			$—
Entergy Louisiana		($211	)		($160	)		($247	)		($22	)		($12	)		($41	)		$—			$—
Entergy Mississippi		($41	)		($20	)		($24	)		($19	)		($40	)		$—			$—			$—
Entergy New Orleans		$—			($7	)		$—			$—			($25	)		$—			($15	)		($15	)
Entergy Texas		($30	)		($65	)		($119	)		$—			$—			$—			$15			$15

2010 Rate Filing Resulting Payment (Receipt) for Reclassification of Production Costs [Table Text Block]

The result of the true-up payments and receipts for the recalculation of production costs resulted in the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$2
Entergy Louisiana	$6
Entergy Mississippi	($4)
Entergy New Orleans	($1)
Entergy Texas	($3)

Entergy Texas [Member]

Details Of Other Regulatory Assets

Entergy Texas

	2017		2016
	(In Millions)
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 5 - Entergy Texas Securitization Bonds)		$386.1		$442.4
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)	169.2		201.7
Transition to competition costs - recovered over a 15-year period through February 2021	37.7		47.9
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)	55.2		33.5
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	8.7		9.0
Other	4.5		5.7
Entergy Texas Total		$661.4		$740.2

Schedule of Regulatory Liabilities

Entergy Texas

	2017		2016
	(In Millions)
Transition to competition costs - returned to customers through rate riders when rates are redetermined periodically		$4.8		$6.2
Other	2.1		2.3
Entergy Texas Total		$6.9		$8.5

The Amount Of Deferred Fuel Costs, That Entergy Expects To Recover (Or Return To Customers) Through Fuel Mechanisms, Subject To Subsequent Regulatory Review

The table below shows the amount of deferred fuel costs as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 that Entergy expects to recover (or return to customers) through fuel mechanisms, subject to subsequent regulatory review.

	2017			2016
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas (a)		$130.4			$163.6
Entergy Louisiana (b)		$96.7			$119.9
Entergy Mississippi		$32.4			$7.0
Entergy New Orleans (b)		($3.7	)		$8.9
Entergy Texas		($67.3	)		($54.5	)

(a) Includes $67.1 million in 2017 and $66.9 million in 2016 of fuel and purchased power costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

(b) Includes $168.1 million in each year for Entergy Louisiana and $4.1 million in each year 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 recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

Estimate Of Payments Or Receipts Among Utility Operating Companies

The filing shows the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$156
Entergy Louisiana	($75)
Entergy Mississippi	($33)
Entergy New Orleans	($5)
Entergy Texas	($43)

Entergy Arkansas made its payment in January 2012.  In February 2012, Entergy Arkansas filed for an interim adjustment to its production cost allocation rider requesting that the $156 million be collected from customers over the 22-month period from March 2012 through December 2013.  In March 2012 the APSC issued an order stating that the payment can be recovered from retail customers through the production cost allocation rider, subject to refund.  The LPSC and the APSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s October 2011 order.  

In February 2014 the FERC issued a rehearing order addressing its October 2011 order. The FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing on the issues of whether the bandwidth remedy should be made effective earlier than June 1, 2005, and whether refunds should be ordered for the 20-month refund effective period. The FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request on the issue of interest on the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period, requiring that interest be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date those bandwidth payments/receipts are made. Also in February 2014 the FERC issued an order rejecting the December 2011 compliance filing that calculated the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. The FERC order required a new compliance filing that calculates the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period based on monthly data for the seven individual months including interest pursuant to the February 2014 rehearing order. Entergy sought rehearing of the February 2014 order with respect to the FERC’s determinations regarding interest. In April 2014 the LPSC filed a petition for review of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In August 2017 the D.C. Circuit issued a decision addressing the LPSC’s appeal of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders. On the issue of the FERC’s implementation of the prospective remedy as of June 2005 and whether the bandwidth remedy should be extended for an additional 17 months in years 2004-2005, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the FERC’s implementation of the remedy and denied the LPSC’s appeal. On the issue of whether the operating companies should be required to issue refunds for the 20-month period from September 2001 to May 2003, the D.C. Circuit granted the FERC’s request for agency reconsideration and remanded that issue back to the FERC for further proceedings as requested by all parties to the appeal.

In April and May 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC an updated compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s February 2014 orders.  The filing shows the following net payments and receipts, including interest, among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$68
Entergy Louisiana	($10)
Entergy Mississippi	($11)
Entergy New Orleans	$2
Entergy Texas	($49)

These payments were made in May 2014. The LPSC, City Council, and APSC filed protests.

Payments/Receipts Among The Utility Operating Companies To Achieve Rough Production Cost Equalization

These filings showed the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies were necessary to achieve rough production cost equalization as defined by the FERC’s orders:

	Payments (Receipts)
	2007			2008			2009			2010			2011			2012			2013			2014
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas		$252			$252			$390			$41			$77			$41			$—			$—
Entergy Louisiana		($211	)		($160	)		($247	)		($22	)		($12	)		($41	)		$—			$—
Entergy Mississippi		($41	)		($20	)		($24	)		($19	)		($40	)		$—			$—			$—
Entergy New Orleans		$—			($7	)		$—			$—			($25	)		$—			($15	)		($15	)
Entergy Texas		($30	)		($65	)		($119	)		$—			$—			$—			$15			$15

2010 Rate Filing Resulting Payment (Receipt) for Reclassification of Production Costs [Table Text Block]

The result of the true-up payments and receipts for the recalculation of production costs resulted in the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$2
Entergy Louisiana	$6
Entergy Mississippi	($4)
Entergy New Orleans	($1)
Entergy Texas	($3)

System Energy [Member]

Details Of Other Regulatory Assets

System Energy

	2017		2016
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans and Other Postretirement Benefits) (a)		$202.7		$193.5
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)	169.1		142.5
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)	67.9		69.7
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	4.6		5.5
System Energy Total		$444.3		$411.2

Schedule of Regulatory Liabilities

System Energy

	2017		2016
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)		$311.6		$219.3
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback - (Note 10 - Sale and Leaseback Transactions)	67.9		67.9
Entergy Arkansas’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and the FERC	44.4		44.4
Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - amortized and credited through the Unit Power Sales Agreement	32.1		39.3
System Energy Total		$456.0		$370.9

Entergy Mississippi [Member]

Details Of Other Regulatory Assets

Entergy Mississippi

	2017		2016
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)		$218.7		$217.2
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)	91.6		82.0
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	49.4		9.3
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	17.6		18.9
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)	7.6		7.2
Other	13.0		7.6
Entergy Mississippi Total		$397.9		$342.2

The Amount Of Deferred Fuel Costs, That Entergy Expects To Recover (Or Return To Customers) Through Fuel Mechanisms, Subject To Subsequent Regulatory Review

The table below shows the amount of deferred fuel costs as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 that Entergy expects to recover (or return to customers) through fuel mechanisms, subject to subsequent regulatory review.

	2017			2016
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas (a)		$130.4			$163.6
Entergy Louisiana (b)		$96.7			$119.9
Entergy Mississippi		$32.4			$7.0
Entergy New Orleans (b)		($3.7	)		$8.9
Entergy Texas		($67.3	)		($54.5	)

(a) Includes $67.1 million in 2017 and $66.9 million in 2016 of fuel and purchased power costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

(b) Includes $168.1 million in each year for Entergy Louisiana and $4.1 million in each year 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 recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

Estimate Of Payments Or Receipts Among Utility Operating Companies

The filing shows the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$156
Entergy Louisiana	($75)
Entergy Mississippi	($33)
Entergy New Orleans	($5)
Entergy Texas	($43)

Entergy Arkansas made its payment in January 2012.  In February 2012, Entergy Arkansas filed for an interim adjustment to its production cost allocation rider requesting that the $156 million be collected from customers over the 22-month period from March 2012 through December 2013.  In March 2012 the APSC issued an order stating that the payment can be recovered from retail customers through the production cost allocation rider, subject to refund.  The LPSC and the APSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s October 2011 order.  

In February 2014 the FERC issued a rehearing order addressing its October 2011 order. The FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing on the issues of whether the bandwidth remedy should be made effective earlier than June 1, 2005, and whether refunds should be ordered for the 20-month refund effective period. The FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request on the issue of interest on the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period, requiring that interest be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date those bandwidth payments/receipts are made. Also in February 2014 the FERC issued an order rejecting the December 2011 compliance filing that calculated the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. The FERC order required a new compliance filing that calculates the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period based on monthly data for the seven individual months including interest pursuant to the February 2014 rehearing order. Entergy sought rehearing of the February 2014 order with respect to the FERC’s determinations regarding interest. In April 2014 the LPSC filed a petition for review of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In August 2017 the D.C. Circuit issued a decision addressing the LPSC’s appeal of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders. On the issue of the FERC’s implementation of the prospective remedy as of June 2005 and whether the bandwidth remedy should be extended for an additional 17 months in years 2004-2005, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the FERC’s implementation of the remedy and denied the LPSC’s appeal. On the issue of whether the operating companies should be required to issue refunds for the 20-month period from September 2001 to May 2003, the D.C. Circuit granted the FERC’s request for agency reconsideration and remanded that issue back to the FERC for further proceedings as requested by all parties to the appeal.

In April and May 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC an updated compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s February 2014 orders.  The filing shows the following net payments and receipts, including interest, among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$68
Entergy Louisiana	($10)
Entergy Mississippi	($11)
Entergy New Orleans	$2
Entergy Texas	($49)

These payments were made in May 2014. The LPSC, City Council, and APSC filed protests.

Payments/Receipts Among The Utility Operating Companies To Achieve Rough Production Cost Equalization

These filings showed the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies were necessary to achieve rough production cost equalization as defined by the FERC’s orders:

	Payments (Receipts)
	2007			2008			2009			2010			2011			2012			2013			2014
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas		$252			$252			$390			$41			$77			$41			$—			$—
Entergy Louisiana		($211	)		($160	)		($247	)		($22	)		($12	)		($41	)		$—			$—
Entergy Mississippi		($41	)		($20	)		($24	)		($19	)		($40	)		$—			$—			$—
Entergy New Orleans		$—			($7	)		$—			$—			($25	)		$—			($15	)		($15	)
Entergy Texas		($30	)		($65	)		($119	)		$—			$—			$—			$15			$15

2010 Rate Filing Resulting Payment (Receipt) for Reclassification of Production Costs [Table Text Block]

The result of the true-up payments and receipts for the recalculation of production costs resulted in the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$2
Entergy Louisiana	$6
Entergy Mississippi	($4)
Entergy New Orleans	($1)
Entergy Texas	($3)

Entergy Arkansas [Member]

Details Of Other Regulatory Assets

Entergy Arkansas

	2017		2016
	(In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)		$757.0		$786.6
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)	345.2		322.9
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)	176.9		128.5
Opportunity sales - recovery will be determined after final order in proceeding (Note 2 - Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding)	109.8		—
Storm damage costs - recovered either through securitization or retail rates (Note 5 - Entergy Arkansas Securitization Bonds)	76.2		88.9
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually	28.2		10.1
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt	24.3		27.6
ANO Fukushima and Flood Barrier costs - recovered through retail rates through February 2026 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)	14.4		16.1
Lake Catherine 4 reliability and sustainability cost deferral - recovery through retail rates (b)	8.9		9.8
Incremental ice storm costs - recovered through 2032	7.4		7.9
MISO costs - recovery through retail rates through 2018 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)	5.5		11.1
Human capital management costs - recovery through retail rates through August 2019 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)	4.4		7.0
Other	9.2		11.5
Entergy Arkansas Total		$1,567.4		$1,428.0

Schedule of Regulatory Liabilities

Entergy Arkansas

	2017		2016
	(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 16) (a)		$354.0		$280.8
Other	9.6		25.1
Entergy Arkansas Total		$363.6		$305.9

The Amount Of Deferred Fuel Costs, That Entergy Expects To Recover (Or Return To Customers) Through Fuel Mechanisms, Subject To Subsequent Regulatory Review

The table below shows the amount of deferred fuel costs as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 that Entergy expects to recover (or return to customers) through fuel mechanisms, subject to subsequent regulatory review.

	2017			2016
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas (a)		$130.4			$163.6
Entergy Louisiana (b)		$96.7			$119.9
Entergy Mississippi		$32.4			$7.0
Entergy New Orleans (b)		($3.7	)		$8.9
Entergy Texas		($67.3	)		($54.5	)

(a) Includes $67.1 million in 2017 and $66.9 million in 2016 of fuel and purchased power costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

(b) Includes $168.1 million in each year for Entergy Louisiana and $4.1 million in each year 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 recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

Estimate Of Payments Or Receipts Among Utility Operating Companies

The filing shows the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$156
Entergy Louisiana	($75)
Entergy Mississippi	($33)
Entergy New Orleans	($5)
Entergy Texas	($43)

Entergy Arkansas made its payment in January 2012.  In February 2012, Entergy Arkansas filed for an interim adjustment to its production cost allocation rider requesting that the $156 million be collected from customers over the 22-month period from March 2012 through December 2013.  In March 2012 the APSC issued an order stating that the payment can be recovered from retail customers through the production cost allocation rider, subject to refund.  The LPSC and the APSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s October 2011 order.  

In February 2014 the FERC issued a rehearing order addressing its October 2011 order. The FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing on the issues of whether the bandwidth remedy should be made effective earlier than June 1, 2005, and whether refunds should be ordered for the 20-month refund effective period. The FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request on the issue of interest on the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period, requiring that interest be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date those bandwidth payments/receipts are made. Also in February 2014 the FERC issued an order rejecting the December 2011 compliance filing that calculated the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. The FERC order required a new compliance filing that calculates the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period based on monthly data for the seven individual months including interest pursuant to the February 2014 rehearing order. Entergy sought rehearing of the February 2014 order with respect to the FERC’s determinations regarding interest. In April 2014 the LPSC filed a petition for review of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In August 2017 the D.C. Circuit issued a decision addressing the LPSC’s appeal of the FERC’s October 2011 and February 2014 orders. On the issue of the FERC’s implementation of the prospective remedy as of June 2005 and whether the bandwidth remedy should be extended for an additional 17 months in years 2004-2005, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the FERC’s implementation of the remedy and denied the LPSC’s appeal. On the issue of whether the operating companies should be required to issue refunds for the 20-month period from September 2001 to May 2003, the D.C. Circuit granted the FERC’s request for agency reconsideration and remanded that issue back to the FERC for further proceedings as requested by all parties to the appeal.

In April and May 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC an updated compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s February 2014 orders.  The filing shows the following net payments and receipts, including interest, among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$68
Entergy Louisiana	($10)
Entergy Mississippi	($11)
Entergy New Orleans	$2
Entergy Texas	($49)

These payments were made in May 2014. The LPSC, City Council, and APSC filed protests.

Payments/Receipts Among The Utility Operating Companies To Achieve Rough Production Cost Equalization

These filings showed the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies were necessary to achieve rough production cost equalization as defined by the FERC’s orders:

	Payments (Receipts)
	2007			2008			2009			2010			2011			2012			2013			2014
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas		$252			$252			$390			$41			$77			$41			$—			$—
Entergy Louisiana		($211	)		($160	)		($247	)		($22	)		($12	)		($41	)		$—			$—
Entergy Mississippi		($41	)		($20	)		($24	)		($19	)		($40	)		$—			$—			$—
Entergy New Orleans		$—			($7	)		$—			$—			($25	)		$—			($15	)		($15	)
Entergy Texas		($30	)		($65	)		($119	)		$—			$—			$—			$15			$15

2010 Rate Filing Resulting Payment (Receipt) for Reclassification of Production Costs [Table Text Block]

The result of the true-up payments and receipts for the recalculation of production costs resulted in the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:

	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	$2
Entergy Louisiana	$6
Entergy Mississippi	($4)
Entergy New Orleans	($1)
Entergy Texas	($3)