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

Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion.

Regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

System Energy

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

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery

Entergy Arkansas

Production Cost Allocation Rider

In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination pursuant to the production cost allocation rider, which reflected a credit to customers for the recovery of the true-up adjustment resulting from the 2018 over-recovered retail balance of $0.1 million and the recovery of a $4.2 million payment to Entergy Arkansas as a result of the FERC’s May 2018 decision in the 2005 bandwidth proceeding, in which the FERC directed a compliance filing to be made that consisted of the comprehensive recalculation of the bandwidth formula rate with true-up payments and

receipts based on test period data for June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. The rates for the 2019 production cost allocation rider update are effective July 2019 through June 2020.

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01882 per kWh to $0.01462 per kWh and became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2019. In March 2019 the Arkansas Attorney General filed a response to Entergy Arkansas’s annual adjustment and included with its filing a motion for investigation of alleged overcharges to customers in connection with the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. Entergy Arkansas filed its response to the Attorney General’s motion in April 2019 in which Entergy Arkansas stated its intent to initiate a proceeding to address recovery issues related to the October 2018 FERC order. In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas initiated the opportunity sales recovery proceeding, discussed below, and requested that the APSC establish that proceeding as the single designated proceeding in which interested parties may assert claims related to the appropriate retail rate treatment of the FERC October 2018 order and related FERC orders in the opportunity sales proceeding. In June 2019 the APSC granted Entergy Arkansas’s request and also denied the Attorney General’s motion in the energy cost recovery proceeding seeking an investigation into Entergy Arkansas’s annual energy cost recovery rider adjustment and referred the evaluation of such matters to the opportunity sales recovery proceeding.

Entergy Louisiana

In July 2014 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 by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. In January 2019 the LPSC staff issued its audit report recommending that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $7.3 million, plus interest, to customers based upon the imputation of a claim of vendor fault in servicing its nuclear plant. Entergy Louisiana recorded a provision in the first quarter 2019 for the potential outcome of the audit. A procedural schedule has been set to address the report and contested issues, with a hearing scheduled in November 2019.

Entergy Mississippi

Mississippi Attorney General Complaint

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The defendants have denied the allegations. In December 2008 the Attorney General’s lawsuit was removed to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. Pre-trial and settlement conferences were held in October 2018. In October 2018 the District Court rescheduled the trial to April 2019. In April 2019 the District Court remanded the Attorney General’s lawsuit to the Hinds County Chancery Court in Jackson, Mississippi. A hearing on procedural and dispositive motions is scheduled for August 2019.

Retail Rate Proceedings

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

Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas)

Retail Rates

2019 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2019 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2020 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the projected year 2020 and a netting adjustment for the historical year 2018. The total proposed formula rate plan rider revenue change designed to produce a target rate of return on common equity of 9.75% is $15.3 million, which is based upon a deficiency of approximately $61.9 million for the 2020 projected year, netted with a credit of approximately $46.6 million in the 2018 historical year netting adjustment. During 2018 Entergy Arkansas experienced higher-than expected sales volume, and actual costs were lower than forecasted. These changes, coupled with a reduced income tax rate resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, resulted in the credit for the historical year netting adjustment. In the fourth quarter 2018 Entergy Arkansas recorded a provision of $35.1 million that reflected the estimate of the historical year netting adjustment that was expected to be included in the 2019 filing. In 2019, Entergy Arkansas recorded additional provisions totaling $11.5 million to reflect the updated estimate of the historical year netting adjustment included in the 2019 filing. The proposed new formula rates would go into effect in January 2020.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)

Retail Rates - Electric

2017 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed an update to its 2017 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the estimated first-year revenue requirement of $109.5 million associated with the St. Charles Power Station. Commercial operation at St. Charles Power Station commenced in May 2019. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of June 2019.

2018 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2018 calendar year operations. The 2018 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on common equity of 10.61% leading to a base rider formula rate plan revenue decrease of $8.9 million. While base rider formula rate plan revenue will decrease as a result of this filing, overall formula rate plan revenues will increase by approximately $118.7 million. This outcome is primarily driven by a reduction to the credits previously flowed through the tax reform adjustment mechanism and an increase in the transmission recovery mechanism, partially offset by reductions in the additional capacity mechanism revenue requirements and extraordinary cost items. The filing is subject to review by the LPSC with resulting rates to be implemented in September 2019, subject to refund if there are contested issues.

Entergy Louisiana also included in its filing a presentation of an initial proposal to combine the legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana residential rates, which combination, if approved, would be accomplished on a revenue-neutral basis intended not to affect the rates of other customer classes. Entergy Louisiana contemplates that any combination of residential rates resulting from this request would be implemented with the results of the 2019 test year formula rate plan filing.

Investigation of Costs Billed by Entergy Services

In November 2018 the LPSC issued a notice of proceeding initiating an investigation into costs incurred by Entergy Services that are included in the retail rates of Entergy Louisiana. As noted in the notice of proceeding, the LPSC observed an increase in capital construction-related costs that have been incurred by Entergy Services. Discovery

is ongoing and has included efforts to seek highly detailed information on a broad range of matters unrelated to the scope of the audit.

Retail Rates - Gas

2018 Rate Stabilization Plan Filing

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization for the test year ended September 30, 2018. Entergy Louisiana made a compliance filing in April 2019 and rates were implemented during the first billing cycle of May 2019, subject to refund and final LPSC review.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Formula Rate Plan

In March 2019, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2019 test year filing and 2018 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2018 calendar year to be above the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 test year filing shows a $36.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.94% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2018 look-back filing compares actual 2018 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and shows a $10.1 million interim decrease in formula rate plan revenues is necessary. In the fourth quarter 2018, Entergy Mississippi recorded a provision of $9.3 million that reflected the estimate of the difference between the 2018 expected earned rate of return on rate base and an established performance-adjusted benchmark rate of return under the formula rate plan performance-adjusted bandwidth mechanism. In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Mississippi recorded a $0.8 million increase in the provision to reflect the amount shown in the look-back filing. In June 2019, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation that confirmed that the 2019 test year filing showed that a $32.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.93% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. Additionally, pursuant to the joint stipulation, Entergy Mississippi’s 2018 look-back filing reflected an earned return on rate base of 7.81% in calendar year 2018 which is above the look-back benchmark return on rate base of 7.13%, resulting in an $11 million decrease in formula rate plan revenues on an interim basis through June 2020. In the second quarter 2019, Entergy Mississippi recorded an additional $0.9 million increase in the provision to reflect the $11 million shown in the look-back filing. In June 2019 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with rates effective for the first billing cycle of July 2019.

Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans)

Retail Rates

See the Form 10-K for discussion of the electric and gas base rate case filed by Entergy New Orleans in September 2018. The evidentiary hearing in this proceeding was held in June 2019. The record and post-hearing briefs were submitted in July 2019, with a City Council decision on the matter expected by October 2019.

In August 2019, Entergy New Orleans sent a letter to the City Council proposing a framework for settlement of the rate case. That framework includes, among other things: (1) a total reduction in revenues of approximately $30 million ($27 million electric, $3 million gas); (2) a reduced return on common equity lower than 10.5%, but still commensurate with Entergy New Orleans’s level of risk, paired with three-year electric and gas formula rate plans with forward-looking features; (3) a demand-side management program intended to achieve greater penetration of the City Council’s Energy Smart programs and make progress towards the City Council’s energy efficiency goals. The letter also sets out proposed next steps to achieve a resolution of the proceeding.

Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Texas)

Base Rate Case

In January 2019, Entergy Texas filed for recovery of rate case expenses totaling $7.2 million. The amounts requested primarily include internal and external expenses related to litigating the 2018 base rate case. Parties filed testimony in April 2019 recommending a disallowance ranging from $3.2 million to $4.2 million of the $7.2 million requested. In May 2019, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony responding to the parties’ positions. A hearing is scheduled for September 2019.

Other Filings

In March 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider. The proposed new DCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $3.2 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. In June 2019 the ALJ issued an order approving interim rates effective June 2019 at the level proposed in Entergy Texas’s application. The proceeding has been returned to the PUCT for approval of the settlement agreement filed in the proceeding, at which point the interim rates would become permanent.

In December 2018, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider. The proposed new TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $2.7 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and September 30, 2018. In April 2019 parties filed testimony proposing a load growth adjustment, which would have fully offset Entergy Texas’s proposed TCRF revenue requirement. In July 2019 the PUCT granted Entergy Texas’s application as filed to begin recovery of the requested $2.7 million annual revenue requirement, rejecting opposing parties’ proposed adjustment; however, the PUCT found that the question of prudence of the actual investment costs should be determined in Entergy Texas’s next rate case similar to the procedure used for the costs recovered through the DCRF rider.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the hearing on the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 occurred in July 2016. The presiding judge issued an initial decision in November 2016. In the initial decision, the presiding judge agreed with the Utility operating companies’ position that: (1) interest on the bandwidth payments for the 2005 test period should be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date that the bandwidth payments for that calculation are paid, which is consistent with how the Utility operating companies performed the calculation; and (2) a portion of Entergy Louisiana’s 2001-vintage Louisiana state net operating loss accumulated deferred income tax that results from the Vidalia tax deduction should be excluded from the 2005 test period bandwidth calculation. Various participants filed briefs on exceptions and/or briefs opposing exceptions related to the initial decision, including the LPSC, the APSC, the FERC trial staff, and Entergy Services. In May 2018 the FERC issued an order affirming the initial decision and ordered a comprehensive recalculation of the bandwidth payments/receipts for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 and a recalculation of the 2006 and 2007 test years as a result of limited revisions. Entergy filed the comprehensive recalculation of the bandwidth payments/receipts for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 and the 2006 and 2007 test years in July 2018. The filing shows the additional following payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies:



	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	($4)
Entergy Louisiana	($23)
Entergy Mississippi	$16
Entergy New Orleans	$5
Entergy Texas	$6

These payments were made in July 2018. In January 2019 the FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing of the May 2018 order. In May 2019 the FERC accepted the July 2018 compliance filing, and the LPSC sought rehearing of that decision in June 2019.

Rough Production Cost Equalization

2010 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2009 Production Costs

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 also filed protests. In July 2010 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2010, subject to refund. After an abeyance of the proceeding schedule, a hearing was held in March 2014 and in December 2015 the FERC issued an order. Among other things, the December 2015 order directed Entergy to submit a compliance filing. In January 2016 the LPSC, the APSC, and Entergy filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s December 2015 order. In February 2016, Entergy submitted the compliance filing ordered in the December 2015 order. 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)

In September 2016 the FERC accepted the February 2016 compliance filing subject to a further compliance filing made in November 2016. The further compliance filing was required as a result of an order issued in September 2016 ruling on the January 2016 rehearing requests filed by the LPSC, the APSC, and Entergy. In the order addressing the rehearing requests, the FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request and directed that interest be calculated on the payment/receipt amounts. The FERC also granted the APSC’s and Entergy’s rehearing request and ordered the removal of both securitized asset accumulated deferred income taxes and contra-securitization accumulated deferred income taxes from the calculation. In November 2016, Entergy submitted its compliance filing in response to the FERC’s order on rehearing. The compliance filing included a revised calculation of the bandwidth true-up payments and receipts based on 2009 test year data and interest calculations. The LPSC protested the interest calculations. In November 2017 the FERC issued an order rejecting the November 2016 compliance filing. The FERC determined that the payments detailed in the November 2016 compliance filing did not include adequate interest for the payments from Entergy Arkansas to Entergy Louisiana because it did not include interest on the principal portion of the payment that was made in February 2016. In December 2017, Entergy recalculated the interest pursuant to the November 2017 order. As a result of the recalculations, Entergy Arkansas owed very minor payments to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy

Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. In June 2019 the FERC issued an order denying the LPSC’s rehearing request of FERC’s September 2016 order. The LPSC rehearing request asked the FERC to reverse its decision that both securitized asset accumulated deferred income taxes and contra-securitization accumulated deferred income taxes should be removed from the bandwidth calculation.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2018, Entergy made a compliance filing in response to the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. The compliance filing provided a final calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payments to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. No protests were filed in response to the December 2018 compliance filing. The December 2018 compliance filing is pending FERC action.

In February 2019 the LPSC filed a new complaint relating to two issues that were raised in the opportunity sales proceeding, but that, in its October 2018 order, the FERC held were outside the scope of the proceeding. In March 2019, Entergy Services filed an answer and motion to dismiss the new complaint.

In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed an application and supporting testimony with the APSC requesting approval of a special rider tariff to recover the costs of these payments from its retail customers over a 24-month period. The application requested that the APSC approve the rider to take effect within 30 days or, if suspended by the APSC as allowed by commission rule, approve the rider to take effect in the first billing cycle of the first month occurring 30 days after issuance of the APSC’s order approving the rider. In June 2019 the APSC suspended Entergy Arkansas’s tariff and granted Entergy Arkansas’s motion asking the APSC to establish the proceeding as the single designated proceeding in which interested parties may assert claims related to the appropriate retail rate treatment of the FERC’s October 2018 order and related FERC orders in the opportunity sales proceeding.

Complaints Against System Energy

Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the return on equity complaints filed by the APSC and the MPSC and by the LPSC against System Energy. The LPSC’s complaint also includes a challenge to System Energy’s capital structure. In August 2018 the FERC issued an order dismissing the LPSC’s request to investigate System Energy’s capital structure and setting for hearing the return on equity complaint, with a refund effective date of April 2018. The portion of the LPSC’s complaint dealing with return on equity was subsequently consolidated with the APSC and MPSC complaint for hearing. The consolidated hearing has been scheduled for September 2019, and the parties are required to address an order (issued in a separate proceeding involving New England transmission owners) that proposed modifying the FERC’s standard methodology for determining return on equity. In September 2018, System Energy filed a request for rehearing and the LPSC filed a request for rehearing or reconsideration of the FERC’s August 2018 order. The LPSC’s request referenced an amended complaint that it filed on the same day raising the same capital structure claim the FERC had earlier dismissed. The FERC initiated a new proceeding for the amended capital structure complaint, and System Energy submitted a response in October 2018. In January 2019 the FERC set the amended capital structure complaint for settlement and hearing proceedings. Settlement procedures in the capital structure proceeding commenced in February 2019. As noted below, in June 2019 settlement discussions were terminated and the amended capital structure complaint was consolidated with the ongoing return on equity proceeding.

In January 2019 the LPSC and the APSC and MPSC filed direct testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the refund period January 23, 2017 through April 23, 2018, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.81% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.24%. For the refund period April 27, 2018 through July 27, 2019, and for application on a prospective basis, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.97% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.41%. In March 2019, System Energy submitted answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, System Energy’s testimony argues for a return on equity

of 10.10% (median) or 10.70% (midpoint). For the second refund period, System Energy’s testimony shows that the calculated returns on equity for the first period fall within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity, and thus the second complaint should be dismissed (and the first period return on equity used going forward). If the FERC nonetheless were to set a new return on equity for the second period (and going forward), System Energy argues the return on equity should be either 10.32% (median) or 10.69% (midpoint).

In May 2019 the FERC staff filed its direct and answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, the FERC staff calculates an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 9.89% based on the application of FERC’s proposed methodology. The FERC staff’s direct and answering testimony noted that an authorized return on equity of 9.89% for the first refund period was within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity for the second refund period, as calculated using a study period ending January 31, 2019 for the second refund period.

In June 2019, System Entergy filed testimony responding to the testimony filed by the FERC staff. Among other things, System Energy’s testimony rebutted arguments raised by the FERC staff and provided updated calculations for the second refund period based on the study period ending May 31, 2019. For that refund period, System Energy’s testimony shows that strict application of the return on equity methodology proposed by the FERC staff indicates that the second complaint would not be dismissed, and the new return on equity would be set at 9.65% (median) or 9.74% (midpoint). System Energy’s testimony argues that these results are insufficient in light of benchmarks such as state returns on equity and treasury bond yields, and instead proposes that the calculated returns on equity for the second period should be either 9.91% (median) or 10.3% (midpoint). System Energy’s testimony also argues that, under application of its proposed modified methodology, the 10.10% return on equity calculated for the first refund period would fall within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity for the second refund period. System Energy is recording a provision against revenue for the potential outcome of this proceeding.

Also in June 2019, the FERC’s Chief ALJ issued an order terminating settlement discussions in the amended complaint addressing System Energy’s capital structure. The ALJ consolidated the amended complaint with the ongoing return on equity proceeding and set new procedural deadlines for the consolidated hearing, such that the hearing will commence in January 2020 and the initial decision will be due in June 2020.

Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1.

In February 2019 the presiding ALJ ruled that the hearing ordered by the FERC includes the issue of whether specific subcategories of accumulated deferred income tax should be included in, or excluded from, System Energy’s formula rate. In March 2019 the LPSC, MPSC, APSC and City Council filed direct testimony. The LPSC testimony seeks refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income taxes associated with uncertain tax positions (claimed to be approximately $334.5 million as of December 2018), and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest (claimed to be approximately $274.8 million), as well as interest on those amounts. The direct testimony of the City Council and the APSC and MPSC address various issues raised by the LPSC. System Energy disputes that any refunds are owed for billings under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. A hearing has been scheduled for November 2019.

In June 2019 System Energy filed answering testimony in the sale-leaseback complaint proceeding arguing that the FERC should reject all claims for refunds. Among other things, System Energy argued that claims for refunds of the costs of lease renewal payments and capital additions should be rejected because those costs were recovered consistent with the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate, System Energy was not over or double recovering any costs, and ratepayers will save approximately $850 million over initial and renewal terms of the leases. System Energy

argued that claims for refunds associated with liabilities arising from uncertain tax positions should be rejected because the liabilities do not provide cost-free capital, the repayment timing of the liabilities is uncertain, and the outcome of the underlying tax positions is uncertain. System Energy’s testimony also challenged the refund calculations supplied by the other parties.

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy Mississippi

As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Mississippi has approval from the MPSC to collect a storm damage provision of $1.75 million per month. If Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated storm damage provision balance exceeds $15 million, the collection of the storm damage provision ceases until such time that the accumulated storm damage provision becomes less than $10 million. As of May 31, 2019, Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance was less than $10 million. Accordingly, Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with July 2019 bills.

Rate and Regulatory Matters

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

Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion.

Regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

System Energy

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

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery

Entergy Arkansas

Production Cost Allocation Rider

In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination pursuant to the production cost allocation rider, which reflected a credit to customers for the recovery of the true-up adjustment resulting from the 2018 over-recovered retail balance of $0.1 million and the recovery of a $4.2 million payment to Entergy Arkansas as a result of the FERC’s May 2018 decision in the 2005 bandwidth proceeding, in which the FERC directed a compliance filing to be made that consisted of the comprehensive recalculation of the bandwidth formula rate with true-up payments and

receipts based on test period data for June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. The rates for the 2019 production cost allocation rider update are effective July 2019 through June 2020.

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01882 per kWh to $0.01462 per kWh and became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2019. In March 2019 the Arkansas Attorney General filed a response to Entergy Arkansas’s annual adjustment and included with its filing a motion for investigation of alleged overcharges to customers in connection with the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. Entergy Arkansas filed its response to the Attorney General’s motion in April 2019 in which Entergy Arkansas stated its intent to initiate a proceeding to address recovery issues related to the October 2018 FERC order. In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas initiated the opportunity sales recovery proceeding, discussed below, and requested that the APSC establish that proceeding as the single designated proceeding in which interested parties may assert claims related to the appropriate retail rate treatment of the FERC October 2018 order and related FERC orders in the opportunity sales proceeding. In June 2019 the APSC granted Entergy Arkansas’s request and also denied the Attorney General’s motion in the energy cost recovery proceeding seeking an investigation into Entergy Arkansas’s annual energy cost recovery rider adjustment and referred the evaluation of such matters to the opportunity sales recovery proceeding.

Entergy Louisiana

In July 2014 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 by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. In January 2019 the LPSC staff issued its audit report recommending that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $7.3 million, plus interest, to customers based upon the imputation of a claim of vendor fault in servicing its nuclear plant. Entergy Louisiana recorded a provision in the first quarter 2019 for the potential outcome of the audit. A procedural schedule has been set to address the report and contested issues, with a hearing scheduled in November 2019.

Entergy Mississippi

Mississippi Attorney General Complaint

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The defendants have denied the allegations. In December 2008 the Attorney General’s lawsuit was removed to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. Pre-trial and settlement conferences were held in October 2018. In October 2018 the District Court rescheduled the trial to April 2019. In April 2019 the District Court remanded the Attorney General’s lawsuit to the Hinds County Chancery Court in Jackson, Mississippi. A hearing on procedural and dispositive motions is scheduled for August 2019.

Retail Rate Proceedings

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

Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas)

Retail Rates

2019 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2019 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2020 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the projected year 2020 and a netting adjustment for the historical year 2018. The total proposed formula rate plan rider revenue change designed to produce a target rate of return on common equity of 9.75% is $15.3 million, which is based upon a deficiency of approximately $61.9 million for the 2020 projected year, netted with a credit of approximately $46.6 million in the 2018 historical year netting adjustment. During 2018 Entergy Arkansas experienced higher-than expected sales volume, and actual costs were lower than forecasted. These changes, coupled with a reduced income tax rate resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, resulted in the credit for the historical year netting adjustment. In the fourth quarter 2018 Entergy Arkansas recorded a provision of $35.1 million that reflected the estimate of the historical year netting adjustment that was expected to be included in the 2019 filing. In 2019, Entergy Arkansas recorded additional provisions totaling $11.5 million to reflect the updated estimate of the historical year netting adjustment included in the 2019 filing. The proposed new formula rates would go into effect in January 2020.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)

Retail Rates - Electric

2017 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed an update to its 2017 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the estimated first-year revenue requirement of $109.5 million associated with the St. Charles Power Station. Commercial operation at St. Charles Power Station commenced in May 2019. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of June 2019.

2018 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2018 calendar year operations. The 2018 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on common equity of 10.61% leading to a base rider formula rate plan revenue decrease of $8.9 million. While base rider formula rate plan revenue will decrease as a result of this filing, overall formula rate plan revenues will increase by approximately $118.7 million. This outcome is primarily driven by a reduction to the credits previously flowed through the tax reform adjustment mechanism and an increase in the transmission recovery mechanism, partially offset by reductions in the additional capacity mechanism revenue requirements and extraordinary cost items. The filing is subject to review by the LPSC with resulting rates to be implemented in September 2019, subject to refund if there are contested issues.

Entergy Louisiana also included in its filing a presentation of an initial proposal to combine the legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana residential rates, which combination, if approved, would be accomplished on a revenue-neutral basis intended not to affect the rates of other customer classes. Entergy Louisiana contemplates that any combination of residential rates resulting from this request would be implemented with the results of the 2019 test year formula rate plan filing.

Investigation of Costs Billed by Entergy Services

In November 2018 the LPSC issued a notice of proceeding initiating an investigation into costs incurred by Entergy Services that are included in the retail rates of Entergy Louisiana. As noted in the notice of proceeding, the LPSC observed an increase in capital construction-related costs that have been incurred by Entergy Services. Discovery

is ongoing and has included efforts to seek highly detailed information on a broad range of matters unrelated to the scope of the audit.

Retail Rates - Gas

2018 Rate Stabilization Plan Filing

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization for the test year ended September 30, 2018. Entergy Louisiana made a compliance filing in April 2019 and rates were implemented during the first billing cycle of May 2019, subject to refund and final LPSC review.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Formula Rate Plan

In March 2019, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2019 test year filing and 2018 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2018 calendar year to be above the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 test year filing shows a $36.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.94% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2018 look-back filing compares actual 2018 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and shows a $10.1 million interim decrease in formula rate plan revenues is necessary. In the fourth quarter 2018, Entergy Mississippi recorded a provision of $9.3 million that reflected the estimate of the difference between the 2018 expected earned rate of return on rate base and an established performance-adjusted benchmark rate of return under the formula rate plan performance-adjusted bandwidth mechanism. In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Mississippi recorded a $0.8 million increase in the provision to reflect the amount shown in the look-back filing. In June 2019, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation that confirmed that the 2019 test year filing showed that a $32.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.93% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. Additionally, pursuant to the joint stipulation, Entergy Mississippi’s 2018 look-back filing reflected an earned return on rate base of 7.81% in calendar year 2018 which is above the look-back benchmark return on rate base of 7.13%, resulting in an $11 million decrease in formula rate plan revenues on an interim basis through June 2020. In the second quarter 2019, Entergy Mississippi recorded an additional $0.9 million increase in the provision to reflect the $11 million shown in the look-back filing. In June 2019 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with rates effective for the first billing cycle of July 2019.

Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans)

Retail Rates

See the Form 10-K for discussion of the electric and gas base rate case filed by Entergy New Orleans in September 2018. The evidentiary hearing in this proceeding was held in June 2019. The record and post-hearing briefs were submitted in July 2019, with a City Council decision on the matter expected by October 2019.

In August 2019, Entergy New Orleans sent a letter to the City Council proposing a framework for settlement of the rate case. That framework includes, among other things: (1) a total reduction in revenues of approximately $30 million ($27 million electric, $3 million gas); (2) a reduced return on common equity lower than 10.5%, but still commensurate with Entergy New Orleans’s level of risk, paired with three-year electric and gas formula rate plans with forward-looking features; (3) a demand-side management program intended to achieve greater penetration of the City Council’s Energy Smart programs and make progress towards the City Council’s energy efficiency goals. The letter also sets out proposed next steps to achieve a resolution of the proceeding.

Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Texas)

Base Rate Case

In January 2019, Entergy Texas filed for recovery of rate case expenses totaling $7.2 million. The amounts requested primarily include internal and external expenses related to litigating the 2018 base rate case. Parties filed testimony in April 2019 recommending a disallowance ranging from $3.2 million to $4.2 million of the $7.2 million requested. In May 2019, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony responding to the parties’ positions. A hearing is scheduled for September 2019.

Other Filings

In March 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider. The proposed new DCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $3.2 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. In June 2019 the ALJ issued an order approving interim rates effective June 2019 at the level proposed in Entergy Texas’s application. The proceeding has been returned to the PUCT for approval of the settlement agreement filed in the proceeding, at which point the interim rates would become permanent.

In December 2018, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider. The proposed new TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $2.7 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and September 30, 2018. In April 2019 parties filed testimony proposing a load growth adjustment, which would have fully offset Entergy Texas’s proposed TCRF revenue requirement. In July 2019 the PUCT granted Entergy Texas’s application as filed to begin recovery of the requested $2.7 million annual revenue requirement, rejecting opposing parties’ proposed adjustment; however, the PUCT found that the question of prudence of the actual investment costs should be determined in Entergy Texas’s next rate case similar to the procedure used for the costs recovered through the DCRF rider.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the hearing on the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 occurred in July 2016. The presiding judge issued an initial decision in November 2016. In the initial decision, the presiding judge agreed with the Utility operating companies’ position that: (1) interest on the bandwidth payments for the 2005 test period should be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date that the bandwidth payments for that calculation are paid, which is consistent with how the Utility operating companies performed the calculation; and (2) a portion of Entergy Louisiana’s 2001-vintage Louisiana state net operating loss accumulated deferred income tax that results from the Vidalia tax deduction should be excluded from the 2005 test period bandwidth calculation. Various participants filed briefs on exceptions and/or briefs opposing exceptions related to the initial decision, including the LPSC, the APSC, the FERC trial staff, and Entergy Services. In May 2018 the FERC issued an order affirming the initial decision and ordered a comprehensive recalculation of the bandwidth payments/receipts for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 and a recalculation of the 2006 and 2007 test years as a result of limited revisions. Entergy filed the comprehensive recalculation of the bandwidth payments/receipts for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 and the 2006 and 2007 test years in July 2018. The filing shows the additional following payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies:



	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	($4)
Entergy Louisiana	($23)
Entergy Mississippi	$16
Entergy New Orleans	$5
Entergy Texas	$6

These payments were made in July 2018. In January 2019 the FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing of the May 2018 order. In May 2019 the FERC accepted the July 2018 compliance filing, and the LPSC sought rehearing of that decision in June 2019.

Rough Production Cost Equalization

2010 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2009 Production Costs

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 also filed protests. In July 2010 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2010, subject to refund. After an abeyance of the proceeding schedule, a hearing was held in March 2014 and in December 2015 the FERC issued an order. Among other things, the December 2015 order directed Entergy to submit a compliance filing. In January 2016 the LPSC, the APSC, and Entergy filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s December 2015 order. In February 2016, Entergy submitted the compliance filing ordered in the December 2015 order. 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)

In September 2016 the FERC accepted the February 2016 compliance filing subject to a further compliance filing made in November 2016. The further compliance filing was required as a result of an order issued in September 2016 ruling on the January 2016 rehearing requests filed by the LPSC, the APSC, and Entergy. In the order addressing the rehearing requests, the FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request and directed that interest be calculated on the payment/receipt amounts. The FERC also granted the APSC’s and Entergy’s rehearing request and ordered the removal of both securitized asset accumulated deferred income taxes and contra-securitization accumulated deferred income taxes from the calculation. In November 2016, Entergy submitted its compliance filing in response to the FERC’s order on rehearing. The compliance filing included a revised calculation of the bandwidth true-up payments and receipts based on 2009 test year data and interest calculations. The LPSC protested the interest calculations. In November 2017 the FERC issued an order rejecting the November 2016 compliance filing. The FERC determined that the payments detailed in the November 2016 compliance filing did not include adequate interest for the payments from Entergy Arkansas to Entergy Louisiana because it did not include interest on the principal portion of the payment that was made in February 2016. In December 2017, Entergy recalculated the interest pursuant to the November 2017 order. As a result of the recalculations, Entergy Arkansas owed very minor payments to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy

Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. In June 2019 the FERC issued an order denying the LPSC’s rehearing request of FERC’s September 2016 order. The LPSC rehearing request asked the FERC to reverse its decision that both securitized asset accumulated deferred income taxes and contra-securitization accumulated deferred income taxes should be removed from the bandwidth calculation.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2018, Entergy made a compliance filing in response to the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. The compliance filing provided a final calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payments to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. No protests were filed in response to the December 2018 compliance filing. The December 2018 compliance filing is pending FERC action.

In February 2019 the LPSC filed a new complaint relating to two issues that were raised in the opportunity sales proceeding, but that, in its October 2018 order, the FERC held were outside the scope of the proceeding. In March 2019, Entergy Services filed an answer and motion to dismiss the new complaint.

In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed an application and supporting testimony with the APSC requesting approval of a special rider tariff to recover the costs of these payments from its retail customers over a 24-month period. The application requested that the APSC approve the rider to take effect within 30 days or, if suspended by the APSC as allowed by commission rule, approve the rider to take effect in the first billing cycle of the first month occurring 30 days after issuance of the APSC’s order approving the rider. In June 2019 the APSC suspended Entergy Arkansas’s tariff and granted Entergy Arkansas’s motion asking the APSC to establish the proceeding as the single designated proceeding in which interested parties may assert claims related to the appropriate retail rate treatment of the FERC’s October 2018 order and related FERC orders in the opportunity sales proceeding.

Complaints Against System Energy

Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the return on equity complaints filed by the APSC and the MPSC and by the LPSC against System Energy. The LPSC’s complaint also includes a challenge to System Energy’s capital structure. In August 2018 the FERC issued an order dismissing the LPSC’s request to investigate System Energy’s capital structure and setting for hearing the return on equity complaint, with a refund effective date of April 2018. The portion of the LPSC’s complaint dealing with return on equity was subsequently consolidated with the APSC and MPSC complaint for hearing. The consolidated hearing has been scheduled for September 2019, and the parties are required to address an order (issued in a separate proceeding involving New England transmission owners) that proposed modifying the FERC’s standard methodology for determining return on equity. In September 2018, System Energy filed a request for rehearing and the LPSC filed a request for rehearing or reconsideration of the FERC’s August 2018 order. The LPSC’s request referenced an amended complaint that it filed on the same day raising the same capital structure claim the FERC had earlier dismissed. The FERC initiated a new proceeding for the amended capital structure complaint, and System Energy submitted a response in October 2018. In January 2019 the FERC set the amended capital structure complaint for settlement and hearing proceedings. Settlement procedures in the capital structure proceeding commenced in February 2019. As noted below, in June 2019 settlement discussions were terminated and the amended capital structure complaint was consolidated with the ongoing return on equity proceeding.

In January 2019 the LPSC and the APSC and MPSC filed direct testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the refund period January 23, 2017 through April 23, 2018, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.81% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.24%. For the refund period April 27, 2018 through July 27, 2019, and for application on a prospective basis, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.97% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.41%. In March 2019, System Energy submitted answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, System Energy’s testimony argues for a return on equity

of 10.10% (median) or 10.70% (midpoint). For the second refund period, System Energy’s testimony shows that the calculated returns on equity for the first period fall within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity, and thus the second complaint should be dismissed (and the first period return on equity used going forward). If the FERC nonetheless were to set a new return on equity for the second period (and going forward), System Energy argues the return on equity should be either 10.32% (median) or 10.69% (midpoint).

In May 2019 the FERC staff filed its direct and answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, the FERC staff calculates an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 9.89% based on the application of FERC’s proposed methodology. The FERC staff’s direct and answering testimony noted that an authorized return on equity of 9.89% for the first refund period was within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity for the second refund period, as calculated using a study period ending January 31, 2019 for the second refund period.

In June 2019, System Entergy filed testimony responding to the testimony filed by the FERC staff. Among other things, System Energy’s testimony rebutted arguments raised by the FERC staff and provided updated calculations for the second refund period based on the study period ending May 31, 2019. For that refund period, System Energy’s testimony shows that strict application of the return on equity methodology proposed by the FERC staff indicates that the second complaint would not be dismissed, and the new return on equity would be set at 9.65% (median) or 9.74% (midpoint). System Energy’s testimony argues that these results are insufficient in light of benchmarks such as state returns on equity and treasury bond yields, and instead proposes that the calculated returns on equity for the second period should be either 9.91% (median) or 10.3% (midpoint). System Energy’s testimony also argues that, under application of its proposed modified methodology, the 10.10% return on equity calculated for the first refund period would fall within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity for the second refund period. System Energy is recording a provision against revenue for the potential outcome of this proceeding.

Also in June 2019, the FERC’s Chief ALJ issued an order terminating settlement discussions in the amended complaint addressing System Energy’s capital structure. The ALJ consolidated the amended complaint with the ongoing return on equity proceeding and set new procedural deadlines for the consolidated hearing, such that the hearing will commence in January 2020 and the initial decision will be due in June 2020.

Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1.

In February 2019 the presiding ALJ ruled that the hearing ordered by the FERC includes the issue of whether specific subcategories of accumulated deferred income tax should be included in, or excluded from, System Energy’s formula rate. In March 2019 the LPSC, MPSC, APSC and City Council filed direct testimony. The LPSC testimony seeks refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income taxes associated with uncertain tax positions (claimed to be approximately $334.5 million as of December 2018), and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest (claimed to be approximately $274.8 million), as well as interest on those amounts. The direct testimony of the City Council and the APSC and MPSC address various issues raised by the LPSC. System Energy disputes that any refunds are owed for billings under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. A hearing has been scheduled for November 2019.

In June 2019 System Energy filed answering testimony in the sale-leaseback complaint proceeding arguing that the FERC should reject all claims for refunds. Among other things, System Energy argued that claims for refunds of the costs of lease renewal payments and capital additions should be rejected because those costs were recovered consistent with the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate, System Energy was not over or double recovering any costs, and ratepayers will save approximately $850 million over initial and renewal terms of the leases. System Energy

argued that claims for refunds associated with liabilities arising from uncertain tax positions should be rejected because the liabilities do not provide cost-free capital, the repayment timing of the liabilities is uncertain, and the outcome of the underlying tax positions is uncertain. System Energy’s testimony also challenged the refund calculations supplied by the other parties.

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy Mississippi

As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Mississippi has approval from the MPSC to collect a storm damage provision of $1.75 million per month. If Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated storm damage provision balance exceeds $15 million, the collection of the storm damage provision ceases until such time that the accumulated storm damage provision becomes less than $10 million. As of May 31, 2019, Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance was less than $10 million. Accordingly, Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with July 2019 bills.

Rate and Regulatory Matters

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

Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion.

Regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

System Energy

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

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery

Entergy Arkansas

Production Cost Allocation Rider

In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination pursuant to the production cost allocation rider, which reflected a credit to customers for the recovery of the true-up adjustment resulting from the 2018 over-recovered retail balance of $0.1 million and the recovery of a $4.2 million payment to Entergy Arkansas as a result of the FERC’s May 2018 decision in the 2005 bandwidth proceeding, in which the FERC directed a compliance filing to be made that consisted of the comprehensive recalculation of the bandwidth formula rate with true-up payments and

receipts based on test period data for June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. The rates for the 2019 production cost allocation rider update are effective July 2019 through June 2020.

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01882 per kWh to $0.01462 per kWh and became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2019. In March 2019 the Arkansas Attorney General filed a response to Entergy Arkansas’s annual adjustment and included with its filing a motion for investigation of alleged overcharges to customers in connection with the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. Entergy Arkansas filed its response to the Attorney General’s motion in April 2019 in which Entergy Arkansas stated its intent to initiate a proceeding to address recovery issues related to the October 2018 FERC order. In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas initiated the opportunity sales recovery proceeding, discussed below, and requested that the APSC establish that proceeding as the single designated proceeding in which interested parties may assert claims related to the appropriate retail rate treatment of the FERC October 2018 order and related FERC orders in the opportunity sales proceeding. In June 2019 the APSC granted Entergy Arkansas’s request and also denied the Attorney General’s motion in the energy cost recovery proceeding seeking an investigation into Entergy Arkansas’s annual energy cost recovery rider adjustment and referred the evaluation of such matters to the opportunity sales recovery proceeding.

Entergy Louisiana

In July 2014 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 by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. In January 2019 the LPSC staff issued its audit report recommending that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $7.3 million, plus interest, to customers based upon the imputation of a claim of vendor fault in servicing its nuclear plant. Entergy Louisiana recorded a provision in the first quarter 2019 for the potential outcome of the audit. A procedural schedule has been set to address the report and contested issues, with a hearing scheduled in November 2019.

Entergy Mississippi

Mississippi Attorney General Complaint

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The defendants have denied the allegations. In December 2008 the Attorney General’s lawsuit was removed to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. Pre-trial and settlement conferences were held in October 2018. In October 2018 the District Court rescheduled the trial to April 2019. In April 2019 the District Court remanded the Attorney General’s lawsuit to the Hinds County Chancery Court in Jackson, Mississippi. A hearing on procedural and dispositive motions is scheduled for August 2019.

Retail Rate Proceedings

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

Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas)

Retail Rates

2019 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2019 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2020 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the projected year 2020 and a netting adjustment for the historical year 2018. The total proposed formula rate plan rider revenue change designed to produce a target rate of return on common equity of 9.75% is $15.3 million, which is based upon a deficiency of approximately $61.9 million for the 2020 projected year, netted with a credit of approximately $46.6 million in the 2018 historical year netting adjustment. During 2018 Entergy Arkansas experienced higher-than expected sales volume, and actual costs were lower than forecasted. These changes, coupled with a reduced income tax rate resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, resulted in the credit for the historical year netting adjustment. In the fourth quarter 2018 Entergy Arkansas recorded a provision of $35.1 million that reflected the estimate of the historical year netting adjustment that was expected to be included in the 2019 filing. In 2019, Entergy Arkansas recorded additional provisions totaling $11.5 million to reflect the updated estimate of the historical year netting adjustment included in the 2019 filing. The proposed new formula rates would go into effect in January 2020.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)

Retail Rates - Electric

2017 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed an update to its 2017 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the estimated first-year revenue requirement of $109.5 million associated with the St. Charles Power Station. Commercial operation at St. Charles Power Station commenced in May 2019. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of June 2019.

2018 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2018 calendar year operations. The 2018 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on common equity of 10.61% leading to a base rider formula rate plan revenue decrease of $8.9 million. While base rider formula rate plan revenue will decrease as a result of this filing, overall formula rate plan revenues will increase by approximately $118.7 million. This outcome is primarily driven by a reduction to the credits previously flowed through the tax reform adjustment mechanism and an increase in the transmission recovery mechanism, partially offset by reductions in the additional capacity mechanism revenue requirements and extraordinary cost items. The filing is subject to review by the LPSC with resulting rates to be implemented in September 2019, subject to refund if there are contested issues.

Entergy Louisiana also included in its filing a presentation of an initial proposal to combine the legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana residential rates, which combination, if approved, would be accomplished on a revenue-neutral basis intended not to affect the rates of other customer classes. Entergy Louisiana contemplates that any combination of residential rates resulting from this request would be implemented with the results of the 2019 test year formula rate plan filing.

Investigation of Costs Billed by Entergy Services

In November 2018 the LPSC issued a notice of proceeding initiating an investigation into costs incurred by Entergy Services that are included in the retail rates of Entergy Louisiana. As noted in the notice of proceeding, the LPSC observed an increase in capital construction-related costs that have been incurred by Entergy Services. Discovery

is ongoing and has included efforts to seek highly detailed information on a broad range of matters unrelated to the scope of the audit.

Retail Rates - Gas

2018 Rate Stabilization Plan Filing

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization for the test year ended September 30, 2018. Entergy Louisiana made a compliance filing in April 2019 and rates were implemented during the first billing cycle of May 2019, subject to refund and final LPSC review.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Formula Rate Plan

In March 2019, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2019 test year filing and 2018 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2018 calendar year to be above the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 test year filing shows a $36.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.94% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2018 look-back filing compares actual 2018 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and shows a $10.1 million interim decrease in formula rate plan revenues is necessary. In the fourth quarter 2018, Entergy Mississippi recorded a provision of $9.3 million that reflected the estimate of the difference between the 2018 expected earned rate of return on rate base and an established performance-adjusted benchmark rate of return under the formula rate plan performance-adjusted bandwidth mechanism. In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Mississippi recorded a $0.8 million increase in the provision to reflect the amount shown in the look-back filing. In June 2019, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation that confirmed that the 2019 test year filing showed that a $32.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.93% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. Additionally, pursuant to the joint stipulation, Entergy Mississippi’s 2018 look-back filing reflected an earned return on rate base of 7.81% in calendar year 2018 which is above the look-back benchmark return on rate base of 7.13%, resulting in an $11 million decrease in formula rate plan revenues on an interim basis through June 2020. In the second quarter 2019, Entergy Mississippi recorded an additional $0.9 million increase in the provision to reflect the $11 million shown in the look-back filing. In June 2019 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with rates effective for the first billing cycle of July 2019.

Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans)

Retail Rates

See the Form 10-K for discussion of the electric and gas base rate case filed by Entergy New Orleans in September 2018. The evidentiary hearing in this proceeding was held in June 2019. The record and post-hearing briefs were submitted in July 2019, with a City Council decision on the matter expected by October 2019.

In August 2019, Entergy New Orleans sent a letter to the City Council proposing a framework for settlement of the rate case. That framework includes, among other things: (1) a total reduction in revenues of approximately $30 million ($27 million electric, $3 million gas); (2) a reduced return on common equity lower than 10.5%, but still commensurate with Entergy New Orleans’s level of risk, paired with three-year electric and gas formula rate plans with forward-looking features; (3) a demand-side management program intended to achieve greater penetration of the City Council’s Energy Smart programs and make progress towards the City Council’s energy efficiency goals. The letter also sets out proposed next steps to achieve a resolution of the proceeding.

Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Texas)

Base Rate Case

In January 2019, Entergy Texas filed for recovery of rate case expenses totaling $7.2 million. The amounts requested primarily include internal and external expenses related to litigating the 2018 base rate case. Parties filed testimony in April 2019 recommending a disallowance ranging from $3.2 million to $4.2 million of the $7.2 million requested. In May 2019, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony responding to the parties’ positions. A hearing is scheduled for September 2019.

Other Filings

In March 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider. The proposed new DCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $3.2 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. In June 2019 the ALJ issued an order approving interim rates effective June 2019 at the level proposed in Entergy Texas’s application. The proceeding has been returned to the PUCT for approval of the settlement agreement filed in the proceeding, at which point the interim rates would become permanent.

In December 2018, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider. The proposed new TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $2.7 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and September 30, 2018. In April 2019 parties filed testimony proposing a load growth adjustment, which would have fully offset Entergy Texas’s proposed TCRF revenue requirement. In July 2019 the PUCT granted Entergy Texas’s application as filed to begin recovery of the requested $2.7 million annual revenue requirement, rejecting opposing parties’ proposed adjustment; however, the PUCT found that the question of prudence of the actual investment costs should be determined in Entergy Texas’s next rate case similar to the procedure used for the costs recovered through the DCRF rider.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the hearing on the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 occurred in July 2016. The presiding judge issued an initial decision in November 2016. In the initial decision, the presiding judge agreed with the Utility operating companies’ position that: (1) interest on the bandwidth payments for the 2005 test period should be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date that the bandwidth payments for that calculation are paid, which is consistent with how the Utility operating companies performed the calculation; and (2) a portion of Entergy Louisiana’s 2001-vintage Louisiana state net operating loss accumulated deferred income tax that results from the Vidalia tax deduction should be excluded from the 2005 test period bandwidth calculation. Various participants filed briefs on exceptions and/or briefs opposing exceptions related to the initial decision, including the LPSC, the APSC, the FERC trial staff, and Entergy Services. In May 2018 the FERC issued an order affirming the initial decision and ordered a comprehensive recalculation of the bandwidth payments/receipts for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 and a recalculation of the 2006 and 2007 test years as a result of limited revisions. Entergy filed the comprehensive recalculation of the bandwidth payments/receipts for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 and the 2006 and 2007 test years in July 2018. The filing shows the additional following payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies:



	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	($4)
Entergy Louisiana	($23)
Entergy Mississippi	$16
Entergy New Orleans	$5
Entergy Texas	$6

These payments were made in July 2018. In January 2019 the FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing of the May 2018 order. In May 2019 the FERC accepted the July 2018 compliance filing, and the LPSC sought rehearing of that decision in June 2019.

Rough Production Cost Equalization

2010 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2009 Production Costs

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 also filed protests. In July 2010 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2010, subject to refund. After an abeyance of the proceeding schedule, a hearing was held in March 2014 and in December 2015 the FERC issued an order. Among other things, the December 2015 order directed Entergy to submit a compliance filing. In January 2016 the LPSC, the APSC, and Entergy filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s December 2015 order. In February 2016, Entergy submitted the compliance filing ordered in the December 2015 order. 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)

In September 2016 the FERC accepted the February 2016 compliance filing subject to a further compliance filing made in November 2016. The further compliance filing was required as a result of an order issued in September 2016 ruling on the January 2016 rehearing requests filed by the LPSC, the APSC, and Entergy. In the order addressing the rehearing requests, the FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request and directed that interest be calculated on the payment/receipt amounts. The FERC also granted the APSC’s and Entergy’s rehearing request and ordered the removal of both securitized asset accumulated deferred income taxes and contra-securitization accumulated deferred income taxes from the calculation. In November 2016, Entergy submitted its compliance filing in response to the FERC’s order on rehearing. The compliance filing included a revised calculation of the bandwidth true-up payments and receipts based on 2009 test year data and interest calculations. The LPSC protested the interest calculations. In November 2017 the FERC issued an order rejecting the November 2016 compliance filing. The FERC determined that the payments detailed in the November 2016 compliance filing did not include adequate interest for the payments from Entergy Arkansas to Entergy Louisiana because it did not include interest on the principal portion of the payment that was made in February 2016. In December 2017, Entergy recalculated the interest pursuant to the November 2017 order. As a result of the recalculations, Entergy Arkansas owed very minor payments to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy

Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. In June 2019 the FERC issued an order denying the LPSC’s rehearing request of FERC’s September 2016 order. The LPSC rehearing request asked the FERC to reverse its decision that both securitized asset accumulated deferred income taxes and contra-securitization accumulated deferred income taxes should be removed from the bandwidth calculation.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2018, Entergy made a compliance filing in response to the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. The compliance filing provided a final calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payments to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. No protests were filed in response to the December 2018 compliance filing. The December 2018 compliance filing is pending FERC action.

In February 2019 the LPSC filed a new complaint relating to two issues that were raised in the opportunity sales proceeding, but that, in its October 2018 order, the FERC held were outside the scope of the proceeding. In March 2019, Entergy Services filed an answer and motion to dismiss the new complaint.

In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed an application and supporting testimony with the APSC requesting approval of a special rider tariff to recover the costs of these payments from its retail customers over a 24-month period. The application requested that the APSC approve the rider to take effect within 30 days or, if suspended by the APSC as allowed by commission rule, approve the rider to take effect in the first billing cycle of the first month occurring 30 days after issuance of the APSC’s order approving the rider. In June 2019 the APSC suspended Entergy Arkansas’s tariff and granted Entergy Arkansas’s motion asking the APSC to establish the proceeding as the single designated proceeding in which interested parties may assert claims related to the appropriate retail rate treatment of the FERC’s October 2018 order and related FERC orders in the opportunity sales proceeding.

Complaints Against System Energy

Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the return on equity complaints filed by the APSC and the MPSC and by the LPSC against System Energy. The LPSC’s complaint also includes a challenge to System Energy’s capital structure. In August 2018 the FERC issued an order dismissing the LPSC’s request to investigate System Energy’s capital structure and setting for hearing the return on equity complaint, with a refund effective date of April 2018. The portion of the LPSC’s complaint dealing with return on equity was subsequently consolidated with the APSC and MPSC complaint for hearing. The consolidated hearing has been scheduled for September 2019, and the parties are required to address an order (issued in a separate proceeding involving New England transmission owners) that proposed modifying the FERC’s standard methodology for determining return on equity. In September 2018, System Energy filed a request for rehearing and the LPSC filed a request for rehearing or reconsideration of the FERC’s August 2018 order. The LPSC’s request referenced an amended complaint that it filed on the same day raising the same capital structure claim the FERC had earlier dismissed. The FERC initiated a new proceeding for the amended capital structure complaint, and System Energy submitted a response in October 2018. In January 2019 the FERC set the amended capital structure complaint for settlement and hearing proceedings. Settlement procedures in the capital structure proceeding commenced in February 2019. As noted below, in June 2019 settlement discussions were terminated and the amended capital structure complaint was consolidated with the ongoing return on equity proceeding.

In January 2019 the LPSC and the APSC and MPSC filed direct testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the refund period January 23, 2017 through April 23, 2018, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.81% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.24%. For the refund period April 27, 2018 through July 27, 2019, and for application on a prospective basis, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.97% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.41%. In March 2019, System Energy submitted answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, System Energy’s testimony argues for a return on equity

of 10.10% (median) or 10.70% (midpoint). For the second refund period, System Energy’s testimony shows that the calculated returns on equity for the first period fall within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity, and thus the second complaint should be dismissed (and the first period return on equity used going forward). If the FERC nonetheless were to set a new return on equity for the second period (and going forward), System Energy argues the return on equity should be either 10.32% (median) or 10.69% (midpoint).

In May 2019 the FERC staff filed its direct and answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, the FERC staff calculates an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 9.89% based on the application of FERC’s proposed methodology. The FERC staff’s direct and answering testimony noted that an authorized return on equity of 9.89% for the first refund period was within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity for the second refund period, as calculated using a study period ending January 31, 2019 for the second refund period.

In June 2019, System Entergy filed testimony responding to the testimony filed by the FERC staff. Among other things, System Energy’s testimony rebutted arguments raised by the FERC staff and provided updated calculations for the second refund period based on the study period ending May 31, 2019. For that refund period, System Energy’s testimony shows that strict application of the return on equity methodology proposed by the FERC staff indicates that the second complaint would not be dismissed, and the new return on equity would be set at 9.65% (median) or 9.74% (midpoint). System Energy’s testimony argues that these results are insufficient in light of benchmarks such as state returns on equity and treasury bond yields, and instead proposes that the calculated returns on equity for the second period should be either 9.91% (median) or 10.3% (midpoint). System Energy’s testimony also argues that, under application of its proposed modified methodology, the 10.10% return on equity calculated for the first refund period would fall within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity for the second refund period. System Energy is recording a provision against revenue for the potential outcome of this proceeding.

Also in June 2019, the FERC’s Chief ALJ issued an order terminating settlement discussions in the amended complaint addressing System Energy’s capital structure. The ALJ consolidated the amended complaint with the ongoing return on equity proceeding and set new procedural deadlines for the consolidated hearing, such that the hearing will commence in January 2020 and the initial decision will be due in June 2020.

Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1.

In February 2019 the presiding ALJ ruled that the hearing ordered by the FERC includes the issue of whether specific subcategories of accumulated deferred income tax should be included in, or excluded from, System Energy’s formula rate. In March 2019 the LPSC, MPSC, APSC and City Council filed direct testimony. The LPSC testimony seeks refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income taxes associated with uncertain tax positions (claimed to be approximately $334.5 million as of December 2018), and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest (claimed to be approximately $274.8 million), as well as interest on those amounts. The direct testimony of the City Council and the APSC and MPSC address various issues raised by the LPSC. System Energy disputes that any refunds are owed for billings under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. A hearing has been scheduled for November 2019.

In June 2019 System Energy filed answering testimony in the sale-leaseback complaint proceeding arguing that the FERC should reject all claims for refunds. Among other things, System Energy argued that claims for refunds of the costs of lease renewal payments and capital additions should be rejected because those costs were recovered consistent with the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate, System Energy was not over or double recovering any costs, and ratepayers will save approximately $850 million over initial and renewal terms of the leases. System Energy

argued that claims for refunds associated with liabilities arising from uncertain tax positions should be rejected because the liabilities do not provide cost-free capital, the repayment timing of the liabilities is uncertain, and the outcome of the underlying tax positions is uncertain. System Energy’s testimony also challenged the refund calculations supplied by the other parties.

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy Mississippi

As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Mississippi has approval from the MPSC to collect a storm damage provision of $1.75 million per month. If Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated storm damage provision balance exceeds $15 million, the collection of the storm damage provision ceases until such time that the accumulated storm damage provision becomes less than $10 million. As of May 31, 2019, Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance was less than $10 million. Accordingly, Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with July 2019 bills.

Rate and Regulatory Matters

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

Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion.

Regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

System Energy

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

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery

Entergy Arkansas

Production Cost Allocation Rider

In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination pursuant to the production cost allocation rider, which reflected a credit to customers for the recovery of the true-up adjustment resulting from the 2018 over-recovered retail balance of $0.1 million and the recovery of a $4.2 million payment to Entergy Arkansas as a result of the FERC’s May 2018 decision in the 2005 bandwidth proceeding, in which the FERC directed a compliance filing to be made that consisted of the comprehensive recalculation of the bandwidth formula rate with true-up payments and

receipts based on test period data for June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. The rates for the 2019 production cost allocation rider update are effective July 2019 through June 2020.

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01882 per kWh to $0.01462 per kWh and became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2019. In March 2019 the Arkansas Attorney General filed a response to Entergy Arkansas’s annual adjustment and included with its filing a motion for investigation of alleged overcharges to customers in connection with the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. Entergy Arkansas filed its response to the Attorney General’s motion in April 2019 in which Entergy Arkansas stated its intent to initiate a proceeding to address recovery issues related to the October 2018 FERC order. In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas initiated the opportunity sales recovery proceeding, discussed below, and requested that the APSC establish that proceeding as the single designated proceeding in which interested parties may assert claims related to the appropriate retail rate treatment of the FERC October 2018 order and related FERC orders in the opportunity sales proceeding. In June 2019 the APSC granted Entergy Arkansas’s request and also denied the Attorney General’s motion in the energy cost recovery proceeding seeking an investigation into Entergy Arkansas’s annual energy cost recovery rider adjustment and referred the evaluation of such matters to the opportunity sales recovery proceeding.

Entergy Louisiana

In July 2014 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 by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. In January 2019 the LPSC staff issued its audit report recommending that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $7.3 million, plus interest, to customers based upon the imputation of a claim of vendor fault in servicing its nuclear plant. Entergy Louisiana recorded a provision in the first quarter 2019 for the potential outcome of the audit. A procedural schedule has been set to address the report and contested issues, with a hearing scheduled in November 2019.

Entergy Mississippi

Mississippi Attorney General Complaint

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The defendants have denied the allegations. In December 2008 the Attorney General’s lawsuit was removed to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. Pre-trial and settlement conferences were held in October 2018. In October 2018 the District Court rescheduled the trial to April 2019. In April 2019 the District Court remanded the Attorney General’s lawsuit to the Hinds County Chancery Court in Jackson, Mississippi. A hearing on procedural and dispositive motions is scheduled for August 2019.

Retail Rate Proceedings

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

Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas)

Retail Rates

2019 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2019 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2020 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the projected year 2020 and a netting adjustment for the historical year 2018. The total proposed formula rate plan rider revenue change designed to produce a target rate of return on common equity of 9.75% is $15.3 million, which is based upon a deficiency of approximately $61.9 million for the 2020 projected year, netted with a credit of approximately $46.6 million in the 2018 historical year netting adjustment. During 2018 Entergy Arkansas experienced higher-than expected sales volume, and actual costs were lower than forecasted. These changes, coupled with a reduced income tax rate resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, resulted in the credit for the historical year netting adjustment. In the fourth quarter 2018 Entergy Arkansas recorded a provision of $35.1 million that reflected the estimate of the historical year netting adjustment that was expected to be included in the 2019 filing. In 2019, Entergy Arkansas recorded additional provisions totaling $11.5 million to reflect the updated estimate of the historical year netting adjustment included in the 2019 filing. The proposed new formula rates would go into effect in January 2020.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)

Retail Rates - Electric

2017 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed an update to its 2017 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the estimated first-year revenue requirement of $109.5 million associated with the St. Charles Power Station. Commercial operation at St. Charles Power Station commenced in May 2019. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of June 2019.

2018 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2018 calendar year operations. The 2018 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on common equity of 10.61% leading to a base rider formula rate plan revenue decrease of $8.9 million. While base rider formula rate plan revenue will decrease as a result of this filing, overall formula rate plan revenues will increase by approximately $118.7 million. This outcome is primarily driven by a reduction to the credits previously flowed through the tax reform adjustment mechanism and an increase in the transmission recovery mechanism, partially offset by reductions in the additional capacity mechanism revenue requirements and extraordinary cost items. The filing is subject to review by the LPSC with resulting rates to be implemented in September 2019, subject to refund if there are contested issues.

Entergy Louisiana also included in its filing a presentation of an initial proposal to combine the legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana residential rates, which combination, if approved, would be accomplished on a revenue-neutral basis intended not to affect the rates of other customer classes. Entergy Louisiana contemplates that any combination of residential rates resulting from this request would be implemented with the results of the 2019 test year formula rate plan filing.

Investigation of Costs Billed by Entergy Services

In November 2018 the LPSC issued a notice of proceeding initiating an investigation into costs incurred by Entergy Services that are included in the retail rates of Entergy Louisiana. As noted in the notice of proceeding, the LPSC observed an increase in capital construction-related costs that have been incurred by Entergy Services. Discovery

is ongoing and has included efforts to seek highly detailed information on a broad range of matters unrelated to the scope of the audit.

Retail Rates - Gas

2018 Rate Stabilization Plan Filing

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization for the test year ended September 30, 2018. Entergy Louisiana made a compliance filing in April 2019 and rates were implemented during the first billing cycle of May 2019, subject to refund and final LPSC review.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Formula Rate Plan

In March 2019, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2019 test year filing and 2018 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2018 calendar year to be above the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 test year filing shows a $36.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.94% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2018 look-back filing compares actual 2018 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and shows a $10.1 million interim decrease in formula rate plan revenues is necessary. In the fourth quarter 2018, Entergy Mississippi recorded a provision of $9.3 million that reflected the estimate of the difference between the 2018 expected earned rate of return on rate base and an established performance-adjusted benchmark rate of return under the formula rate plan performance-adjusted bandwidth mechanism. In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Mississippi recorded a $0.8 million increase in the provision to reflect the amount shown in the look-back filing. In June 2019, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation that confirmed that the 2019 test year filing showed that a $32.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.93% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. Additionally, pursuant to the joint stipulation, Entergy Mississippi’s 2018 look-back filing reflected an earned return on rate base of 7.81% in calendar year 2018 which is above the look-back benchmark return on rate base of 7.13%, resulting in an $11 million decrease in formula rate plan revenues on an interim basis through June 2020. In the second quarter 2019, Entergy Mississippi recorded an additional $0.9 million increase in the provision to reflect the $11 million shown in the look-back filing. In June 2019 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with rates effective for the first billing cycle of July 2019.

Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans)

Retail Rates

See the Form 10-K for discussion of the electric and gas base rate case filed by Entergy New Orleans in September 2018. The evidentiary hearing in this proceeding was held in June 2019. The record and post-hearing briefs were submitted in July 2019, with a City Council decision on the matter expected by October 2019.

In August 2019, Entergy New Orleans sent a letter to the City Council proposing a framework for settlement of the rate case. That framework includes, among other things: (1) a total reduction in revenues of approximately $30 million ($27 million electric, $3 million gas); (2) a reduced return on common equity lower than 10.5%, but still commensurate with Entergy New Orleans’s level of risk, paired with three-year electric and gas formula rate plans with forward-looking features; (3) a demand-side management program intended to achieve greater penetration of the City Council’s Energy Smart programs and make progress towards the City Council’s energy efficiency goals. The letter also sets out proposed next steps to achieve a resolution of the proceeding.

Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Texas)

Base Rate Case

In January 2019, Entergy Texas filed for recovery of rate case expenses totaling $7.2 million. The amounts requested primarily include internal and external expenses related to litigating the 2018 base rate case. Parties filed testimony in April 2019 recommending a disallowance ranging from $3.2 million to $4.2 million of the $7.2 million requested. In May 2019, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony responding to the parties’ positions. A hearing is scheduled for September 2019.

Other Filings

In March 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider. The proposed new DCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $3.2 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. In June 2019 the ALJ issued an order approving interim rates effective June 2019 at the level proposed in Entergy Texas’s application. The proceeding has been returned to the PUCT for approval of the settlement agreement filed in the proceeding, at which point the interim rates would become permanent.

In December 2018, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider. The proposed new TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $2.7 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and September 30, 2018. In April 2019 parties filed testimony proposing a load growth adjustment, which would have fully offset Entergy Texas’s proposed TCRF revenue requirement. In July 2019 the PUCT granted Entergy Texas’s application as filed to begin recovery of the requested $2.7 million annual revenue requirement, rejecting opposing parties’ proposed adjustment; however, the PUCT found that the question of prudence of the actual investment costs should be determined in Entergy Texas’s next rate case similar to the procedure used for the costs recovered through the DCRF rider.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the hearing on the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 occurred in July 2016. The presiding judge issued an initial decision in November 2016. In the initial decision, the presiding judge agreed with the Utility operating companies’ position that: (1) interest on the bandwidth payments for the 2005 test period should be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date that the bandwidth payments for that calculation are paid, which is consistent with how the Utility operating companies performed the calculation; and (2) a portion of Entergy Louisiana’s 2001-vintage Louisiana state net operating loss accumulated deferred income tax that results from the Vidalia tax deduction should be excluded from the 2005 test period bandwidth calculation. Various participants filed briefs on exceptions and/or briefs opposing exceptions related to the initial decision, including the LPSC, the APSC, the FERC trial staff, and Entergy Services. In May 2018 the FERC issued an order affirming the initial decision and ordered a comprehensive recalculation of the bandwidth payments/receipts for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 and a recalculation of the 2006 and 2007 test years as a result of limited revisions. Entergy filed the comprehensive recalculation of the bandwidth payments/receipts for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 and the 2006 and 2007 test years in July 2018. The filing shows the additional following payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies:



	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	($4)
Entergy Louisiana	($23)
Entergy Mississippi	$16
Entergy New Orleans	$5
Entergy Texas	$6

These payments were made in July 2018. In January 2019 the FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing of the May 2018 order. In May 2019 the FERC accepted the July 2018 compliance filing, and the LPSC sought rehearing of that decision in June 2019.

Rough Production Cost Equalization

2010 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2009 Production Costs

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 also filed protests. In July 2010 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2010, subject to refund. After an abeyance of the proceeding schedule, a hearing was held in March 2014 and in December 2015 the FERC issued an order. Among other things, the December 2015 order directed Entergy to submit a compliance filing. In January 2016 the LPSC, the APSC, and Entergy filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s December 2015 order. In February 2016, Entergy submitted the compliance filing ordered in the December 2015 order. 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)

In September 2016 the FERC accepted the February 2016 compliance filing subject to a further compliance filing made in November 2016. The further compliance filing was required as a result of an order issued in September 2016 ruling on the January 2016 rehearing requests filed by the LPSC, the APSC, and Entergy. In the order addressing the rehearing requests, the FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request and directed that interest be calculated on the payment/receipt amounts. The FERC also granted the APSC’s and Entergy’s rehearing request and ordered the removal of both securitized asset accumulated deferred income taxes and contra-securitization accumulated deferred income taxes from the calculation. In November 2016, Entergy submitted its compliance filing in response to the FERC’s order on rehearing. The compliance filing included a revised calculation of the bandwidth true-up payments and receipts based on 2009 test year data and interest calculations. The LPSC protested the interest calculations. In November 2017 the FERC issued an order rejecting the November 2016 compliance filing. The FERC determined that the payments detailed in the November 2016 compliance filing did not include adequate interest for the payments from Entergy Arkansas to Entergy Louisiana because it did not include interest on the principal portion of the payment that was made in February 2016. In December 2017, Entergy recalculated the interest pursuant to the November 2017 order. As a result of the recalculations, Entergy Arkansas owed very minor payments to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy

Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. In June 2019 the FERC issued an order denying the LPSC’s rehearing request of FERC’s September 2016 order. The LPSC rehearing request asked the FERC to reverse its decision that both securitized asset accumulated deferred income taxes and contra-securitization accumulated deferred income taxes should be removed from the bandwidth calculation.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2018, Entergy made a compliance filing in response to the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. The compliance filing provided a final calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payments to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. No protests were filed in response to the December 2018 compliance filing. The December 2018 compliance filing is pending FERC action.

In February 2019 the LPSC filed a new complaint relating to two issues that were raised in the opportunity sales proceeding, but that, in its October 2018 order, the FERC held were outside the scope of the proceeding. In March 2019, Entergy Services filed an answer and motion to dismiss the new complaint.

In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed an application and supporting testimony with the APSC requesting approval of a special rider tariff to recover the costs of these payments from its retail customers over a 24-month period. The application requested that the APSC approve the rider to take effect within 30 days or, if suspended by the APSC as allowed by commission rule, approve the rider to take effect in the first billing cycle of the first month occurring 30 days after issuance of the APSC’s order approving the rider. In June 2019 the APSC suspended Entergy Arkansas’s tariff and granted Entergy Arkansas’s motion asking the APSC to establish the proceeding as the single designated proceeding in which interested parties may assert claims related to the appropriate retail rate treatment of the FERC’s October 2018 order and related FERC orders in the opportunity sales proceeding.

Complaints Against System Energy

Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the return on equity complaints filed by the APSC and the MPSC and by the LPSC against System Energy. The LPSC’s complaint also includes a challenge to System Energy’s capital structure. In August 2018 the FERC issued an order dismissing the LPSC’s request to investigate System Energy’s capital structure and setting for hearing the return on equity complaint, with a refund effective date of April 2018. The portion of the LPSC’s complaint dealing with return on equity was subsequently consolidated with the APSC and MPSC complaint for hearing. The consolidated hearing has been scheduled for September 2019, and the parties are required to address an order (issued in a separate proceeding involving New England transmission owners) that proposed modifying the FERC’s standard methodology for determining return on equity. In September 2018, System Energy filed a request for rehearing and the LPSC filed a request for rehearing or reconsideration of the FERC’s August 2018 order. The LPSC’s request referenced an amended complaint that it filed on the same day raising the same capital structure claim the FERC had earlier dismissed. The FERC initiated a new proceeding for the amended capital structure complaint, and System Energy submitted a response in October 2018. In January 2019 the FERC set the amended capital structure complaint for settlement and hearing proceedings. Settlement procedures in the capital structure proceeding commenced in February 2019. As noted below, in June 2019 settlement discussions were terminated and the amended capital structure complaint was consolidated with the ongoing return on equity proceeding.

In January 2019 the LPSC and the APSC and MPSC filed direct testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the refund period January 23, 2017 through April 23, 2018, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.81% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.24%. For the refund period April 27, 2018 through July 27, 2019, and for application on a prospective basis, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.97% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.41%. In March 2019, System Energy submitted answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, System Energy’s testimony argues for a return on equity

of 10.10% (median) or 10.70% (midpoint). For the second refund period, System Energy’s testimony shows that the calculated returns on equity for the first period fall within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity, and thus the second complaint should be dismissed (and the first period return on equity used going forward). If the FERC nonetheless were to set a new return on equity for the second period (and going forward), System Energy argues the return on equity should be either 10.32% (median) or 10.69% (midpoint).

In May 2019 the FERC staff filed its direct and answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, the FERC staff calculates an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 9.89% based on the application of FERC’s proposed methodology. The FERC staff’s direct and answering testimony noted that an authorized return on equity of 9.89% for the first refund period was within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity for the second refund period, as calculated using a study period ending January 31, 2019 for the second refund period.

In June 2019, System Entergy filed testimony responding to the testimony filed by the FERC staff. Among other things, System Energy’s testimony rebutted arguments raised by the FERC staff and provided updated calculations for the second refund period based on the study period ending May 31, 2019. For that refund period, System Energy’s testimony shows that strict application of the return on equity methodology proposed by the FERC staff indicates that the second complaint would not be dismissed, and the new return on equity would be set at 9.65% (median) or 9.74% (midpoint). System Energy’s testimony argues that these results are insufficient in light of benchmarks such as state returns on equity and treasury bond yields, and instead proposes that the calculated returns on equity for the second period should be either 9.91% (median) or 10.3% (midpoint). System Energy’s testimony also argues that, under application of its proposed modified methodology, the 10.10% return on equity calculated for the first refund period would fall within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity for the second refund period. System Energy is recording a provision against revenue for the potential outcome of this proceeding.

Also in June 2019, the FERC’s Chief ALJ issued an order terminating settlement discussions in the amended complaint addressing System Energy’s capital structure. The ALJ consolidated the amended complaint with the ongoing return on equity proceeding and set new procedural deadlines for the consolidated hearing, such that the hearing will commence in January 2020 and the initial decision will be due in June 2020.

Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1.

In February 2019 the presiding ALJ ruled that the hearing ordered by the FERC includes the issue of whether specific subcategories of accumulated deferred income tax should be included in, or excluded from, System Energy’s formula rate. In March 2019 the LPSC, MPSC, APSC and City Council filed direct testimony. The LPSC testimony seeks refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income taxes associated with uncertain tax positions (claimed to be approximately $334.5 million as of December 2018), and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest (claimed to be approximately $274.8 million), as well as interest on those amounts. The direct testimony of the City Council and the APSC and MPSC address various issues raised by the LPSC. System Energy disputes that any refunds are owed for billings under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. A hearing has been scheduled for November 2019.

In June 2019 System Energy filed answering testimony in the sale-leaseback complaint proceeding arguing that the FERC should reject all claims for refunds. Among other things, System Energy argued that claims for refunds of the costs of lease renewal payments and capital additions should be rejected because those costs were recovered consistent with the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate, System Energy was not over or double recovering any costs, and ratepayers will save approximately $850 million over initial and renewal terms of the leases. System Energy

argued that claims for refunds associated with liabilities arising from uncertain tax positions should be rejected because the liabilities do not provide cost-free capital, the repayment timing of the liabilities is uncertain, and the outcome of the underlying tax positions is uncertain. System Energy’s testimony also challenged the refund calculations supplied by the other parties.

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy Mississippi

As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Mississippi has approval from the MPSC to collect a storm damage provision of $1.75 million per month. If Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated storm damage provision balance exceeds $15 million, the collection of the storm damage provision ceases until such time that the accumulated storm damage provision becomes less than $10 million. As of May 31, 2019, Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance was less than $10 million. Accordingly, Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with July 2019 bills.

Rate and Regulatory Matters

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

Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion.

Regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

System Energy

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

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery

Entergy Arkansas

Production Cost Allocation Rider

In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination pursuant to the production cost allocation rider, which reflected a credit to customers for the recovery of the true-up adjustment resulting from the 2018 over-recovered retail balance of $0.1 million and the recovery of a $4.2 million payment to Entergy Arkansas as a result of the FERC’s May 2018 decision in the 2005 bandwidth proceeding, in which the FERC directed a compliance filing to be made that consisted of the comprehensive recalculation of the bandwidth formula rate with true-up payments and

receipts based on test period data for June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. The rates for the 2019 production cost allocation rider update are effective July 2019 through June 2020.

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01882 per kWh to $0.01462 per kWh and became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2019. In March 2019 the Arkansas Attorney General filed a response to Entergy Arkansas’s annual adjustment and included with its filing a motion for investigation of alleged overcharges to customers in connection with the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. Entergy Arkansas filed its response to the Attorney General’s motion in April 2019 in which Entergy Arkansas stated its intent to initiate a proceeding to address recovery issues related to the October 2018 FERC order. In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas initiated the opportunity sales recovery proceeding, discussed below, and requested that the APSC establish that proceeding as the single designated proceeding in which interested parties may assert claims related to the appropriate retail rate treatment of the FERC October 2018 order and related FERC orders in the opportunity sales proceeding. In June 2019 the APSC granted Entergy Arkansas’s request and also denied the Attorney General’s motion in the energy cost recovery proceeding seeking an investigation into Entergy Arkansas’s annual energy cost recovery rider adjustment and referred the evaluation of such matters to the opportunity sales recovery proceeding.

Entergy Louisiana

In July 2014 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 by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. In January 2019 the LPSC staff issued its audit report recommending that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $7.3 million, plus interest, to customers based upon the imputation of a claim of vendor fault in servicing its nuclear plant. Entergy Louisiana recorded a provision in the first quarter 2019 for the potential outcome of the audit. A procedural schedule has been set to address the report and contested issues, with a hearing scheduled in November 2019.

Entergy Mississippi

Mississippi Attorney General Complaint

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The defendants have denied the allegations. In December 2008 the Attorney General’s lawsuit was removed to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. Pre-trial and settlement conferences were held in October 2018. In October 2018 the District Court rescheduled the trial to April 2019. In April 2019 the District Court remanded the Attorney General’s lawsuit to the Hinds County Chancery Court in Jackson, Mississippi. A hearing on procedural and dispositive motions is scheduled for August 2019.

Retail Rate Proceedings

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

Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas)

Retail Rates

2019 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2019 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2020 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the projected year 2020 and a netting adjustment for the historical year 2018. The total proposed formula rate plan rider revenue change designed to produce a target rate of return on common equity of 9.75% is $15.3 million, which is based upon a deficiency of approximately $61.9 million for the 2020 projected year, netted with a credit of approximately $46.6 million in the 2018 historical year netting adjustment. During 2018 Entergy Arkansas experienced higher-than expected sales volume, and actual costs were lower than forecasted. These changes, coupled with a reduced income tax rate resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, resulted in the credit for the historical year netting adjustment. In the fourth quarter 2018 Entergy Arkansas recorded a provision of $35.1 million that reflected the estimate of the historical year netting adjustment that was expected to be included in the 2019 filing. In 2019, Entergy Arkansas recorded additional provisions totaling $11.5 million to reflect the updated estimate of the historical year netting adjustment included in the 2019 filing. The proposed new formula rates would go into effect in January 2020.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)

Retail Rates - Electric

2017 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed an update to its 2017 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the estimated first-year revenue requirement of $109.5 million associated with the St. Charles Power Station. Commercial operation at St. Charles Power Station commenced in May 2019. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of June 2019.

2018 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2018 calendar year operations. The 2018 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on common equity of 10.61% leading to a base rider formula rate plan revenue decrease of $8.9 million. While base rider formula rate plan revenue will decrease as a result of this filing, overall formula rate plan revenues will increase by approximately $118.7 million. This outcome is primarily driven by a reduction to the credits previously flowed through the tax reform adjustment mechanism and an increase in the transmission recovery mechanism, partially offset by reductions in the additional capacity mechanism revenue requirements and extraordinary cost items. The filing is subject to review by the LPSC with resulting rates to be implemented in September 2019, subject to refund if there are contested issues.

Entergy Louisiana also included in its filing a presentation of an initial proposal to combine the legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana residential rates, which combination, if approved, would be accomplished on a revenue-neutral basis intended not to affect the rates of other customer classes. Entergy Louisiana contemplates that any combination of residential rates resulting from this request would be implemented with the results of the 2019 test year formula rate plan filing.

Investigation of Costs Billed by Entergy Services

In November 2018 the LPSC issued a notice of proceeding initiating an investigation into costs incurred by Entergy Services that are included in the retail rates of Entergy Louisiana. As noted in the notice of proceeding, the LPSC observed an increase in capital construction-related costs that have been incurred by Entergy Services. Discovery

is ongoing and has included efforts to seek highly detailed information on a broad range of matters unrelated to the scope of the audit.

Retail Rates - Gas

2018 Rate Stabilization Plan Filing

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization for the test year ended September 30, 2018. Entergy Louisiana made a compliance filing in April 2019 and rates were implemented during the first billing cycle of May 2019, subject to refund and final LPSC review.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Formula Rate Plan

In March 2019, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2019 test year filing and 2018 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2018 calendar year to be above the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 test year filing shows a $36.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.94% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2018 look-back filing compares actual 2018 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and shows a $10.1 million interim decrease in formula rate plan revenues is necessary. In the fourth quarter 2018, Entergy Mississippi recorded a provision of $9.3 million that reflected the estimate of the difference between the 2018 expected earned rate of return on rate base and an established performance-adjusted benchmark rate of return under the formula rate plan performance-adjusted bandwidth mechanism. In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Mississippi recorded a $0.8 million increase in the provision to reflect the amount shown in the look-back filing. In June 2019, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation that confirmed that the 2019 test year filing showed that a $32.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.93% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. Additionally, pursuant to the joint stipulation, Entergy Mississippi’s 2018 look-back filing reflected an earned return on rate base of 7.81% in calendar year 2018 which is above the look-back benchmark return on rate base of 7.13%, resulting in an $11 million decrease in formula rate plan revenues on an interim basis through June 2020. In the second quarter 2019, Entergy Mississippi recorded an additional $0.9 million increase in the provision to reflect the $11 million shown in the look-back filing. In June 2019 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with rates effective for the first billing cycle of July 2019.

Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans)

Retail Rates

See the Form 10-K for discussion of the electric and gas base rate case filed by Entergy New Orleans in September 2018. The evidentiary hearing in this proceeding was held in June 2019. The record and post-hearing briefs were submitted in July 2019, with a City Council decision on the matter expected by October 2019.

In August 2019, Entergy New Orleans sent a letter to the City Council proposing a framework for settlement of the rate case. That framework includes, among other things: (1) a total reduction in revenues of approximately $30 million ($27 million electric, $3 million gas); (2) a reduced return on common equity lower than 10.5%, but still commensurate with Entergy New Orleans’s level of risk, paired with three-year electric and gas formula rate plans with forward-looking features; (3) a demand-side management program intended to achieve greater penetration of the City Council’s Energy Smart programs and make progress towards the City Council’s energy efficiency goals. The letter also sets out proposed next steps to achieve a resolution of the proceeding.

Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Texas)

Base Rate Case

In January 2019, Entergy Texas filed for recovery of rate case expenses totaling $7.2 million. The amounts requested primarily include internal and external expenses related to litigating the 2018 base rate case. Parties filed testimony in April 2019 recommending a disallowance ranging from $3.2 million to $4.2 million of the $7.2 million requested. In May 2019, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony responding to the parties’ positions. A hearing is scheduled for September 2019.

Other Filings

In March 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider. The proposed new DCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $3.2 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. In June 2019 the ALJ issued an order approving interim rates effective June 2019 at the level proposed in Entergy Texas’s application. The proceeding has been returned to the PUCT for approval of the settlement agreement filed in the proceeding, at which point the interim rates would become permanent.

In December 2018, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider. The proposed new TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $2.7 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and September 30, 2018. In April 2019 parties filed testimony proposing a load growth adjustment, which would have fully offset Entergy Texas’s proposed TCRF revenue requirement. In July 2019 the PUCT granted Entergy Texas’s application as filed to begin recovery of the requested $2.7 million annual revenue requirement, rejecting opposing parties’ proposed adjustment; however, the PUCT found that the question of prudence of the actual investment costs should be determined in Entergy Texas’s next rate case similar to the procedure used for the costs recovered through the DCRF rider.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the hearing on the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 occurred in July 2016. The presiding judge issued an initial decision in November 2016. In the initial decision, the presiding judge agreed with the Utility operating companies’ position that: (1) interest on the bandwidth payments for the 2005 test period should be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date that the bandwidth payments for that calculation are paid, which is consistent with how the Utility operating companies performed the calculation; and (2) a portion of Entergy Louisiana’s 2001-vintage Louisiana state net operating loss accumulated deferred income tax that results from the Vidalia tax deduction should be excluded from the 2005 test period bandwidth calculation. Various participants filed briefs on exceptions and/or briefs opposing exceptions related to the initial decision, including the LPSC, the APSC, the FERC trial staff, and Entergy Services. In May 2018 the FERC issued an order affirming the initial decision and ordered a comprehensive recalculation of the bandwidth payments/receipts for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 and a recalculation of the 2006 and 2007 test years as a result of limited revisions. Entergy filed the comprehensive recalculation of the bandwidth payments/receipts for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 and the 2006 and 2007 test years in July 2018. The filing shows the additional following payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies:



	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	($4)
Entergy Louisiana	($23)
Entergy Mississippi	$16
Entergy New Orleans	$5
Entergy Texas	$6

These payments were made in July 2018. In January 2019 the FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing of the May 2018 order. In May 2019 the FERC accepted the July 2018 compliance filing, and the LPSC sought rehearing of that decision in June 2019.

Rough Production Cost Equalization

2010 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2009 Production Costs

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 also filed protests. In July 2010 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2010, subject to refund. After an abeyance of the proceeding schedule, a hearing was held in March 2014 and in December 2015 the FERC issued an order. Among other things, the December 2015 order directed Entergy to submit a compliance filing. In January 2016 the LPSC, the APSC, and Entergy filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s December 2015 order. In February 2016, Entergy submitted the compliance filing ordered in the December 2015 order. 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)

In September 2016 the FERC accepted the February 2016 compliance filing subject to a further compliance filing made in November 2016. The further compliance filing was required as a result of an order issued in September 2016 ruling on the January 2016 rehearing requests filed by the LPSC, the APSC, and Entergy. In the order addressing the rehearing requests, the FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request and directed that interest be calculated on the payment/receipt amounts. The FERC also granted the APSC’s and Entergy’s rehearing request and ordered the removal of both securitized asset accumulated deferred income taxes and contra-securitization accumulated deferred income taxes from the calculation. In November 2016, Entergy submitted its compliance filing in response to the FERC’s order on rehearing. The compliance filing included a revised calculation of the bandwidth true-up payments and receipts based on 2009 test year data and interest calculations. The LPSC protested the interest calculations. In November 2017 the FERC issued an order rejecting the November 2016 compliance filing. The FERC determined that the payments detailed in the November 2016 compliance filing did not include adequate interest for the payments from Entergy Arkansas to Entergy Louisiana because it did not include interest on the principal portion of the payment that was made in February 2016. In December 2017, Entergy recalculated the interest pursuant to the November 2017 order. As a result of the recalculations, Entergy Arkansas owed very minor payments to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy

Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. In June 2019 the FERC issued an order denying the LPSC’s rehearing request of FERC’s September 2016 order. The LPSC rehearing request asked the FERC to reverse its decision that both securitized asset accumulated deferred income taxes and contra-securitization accumulated deferred income taxes should be removed from the bandwidth calculation.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2018, Entergy made a compliance filing in response to the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. The compliance filing provided a final calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payments to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. No protests were filed in response to the December 2018 compliance filing. The December 2018 compliance filing is pending FERC action.

In February 2019 the LPSC filed a new complaint relating to two issues that were raised in the opportunity sales proceeding, but that, in its October 2018 order, the FERC held were outside the scope of the proceeding. In March 2019, Entergy Services filed an answer and motion to dismiss the new complaint.

In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed an application and supporting testimony with the APSC requesting approval of a special rider tariff to recover the costs of these payments from its retail customers over a 24-month period. The application requested that the APSC approve the rider to take effect within 30 days or, if suspended by the APSC as allowed by commission rule, approve the rider to take effect in the first billing cycle of the first month occurring 30 days after issuance of the APSC’s order approving the rider. In June 2019 the APSC suspended Entergy Arkansas’s tariff and granted Entergy Arkansas’s motion asking the APSC to establish the proceeding as the single designated proceeding in which interested parties may assert claims related to the appropriate retail rate treatment of the FERC’s October 2018 order and related FERC orders in the opportunity sales proceeding.

Complaints Against System Energy

Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the return on equity complaints filed by the APSC and the MPSC and by the LPSC against System Energy. The LPSC’s complaint also includes a challenge to System Energy’s capital structure. In August 2018 the FERC issued an order dismissing the LPSC’s request to investigate System Energy’s capital structure and setting for hearing the return on equity complaint, with a refund effective date of April 2018. The portion of the LPSC’s complaint dealing with return on equity was subsequently consolidated with the APSC and MPSC complaint for hearing. The consolidated hearing has been scheduled for September 2019, and the parties are required to address an order (issued in a separate proceeding involving New England transmission owners) that proposed modifying the FERC’s standard methodology for determining return on equity. In September 2018, System Energy filed a request for rehearing and the LPSC filed a request for rehearing or reconsideration of the FERC’s August 2018 order. The LPSC’s request referenced an amended complaint that it filed on the same day raising the same capital structure claim the FERC had earlier dismissed. The FERC initiated a new proceeding for the amended capital structure complaint, and System Energy submitted a response in October 2018. In January 2019 the FERC set the amended capital structure complaint for settlement and hearing proceedings. Settlement procedures in the capital structure proceeding commenced in February 2019. As noted below, in June 2019 settlement discussions were terminated and the amended capital structure complaint was consolidated with the ongoing return on equity proceeding.

In January 2019 the LPSC and the APSC and MPSC filed direct testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the refund period January 23, 2017 through April 23, 2018, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.81% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.24%. For the refund period April 27, 2018 through July 27, 2019, and for application on a prospective basis, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.97% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.41%. In March 2019, System Energy submitted answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, System Energy’s testimony argues for a return on equity

of 10.10% (median) or 10.70% (midpoint). For the second refund period, System Energy’s testimony shows that the calculated returns on equity for the first period fall within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity, and thus the second complaint should be dismissed (and the first period return on equity used going forward). If the FERC nonetheless were to set a new return on equity for the second period (and going forward), System Energy argues the return on equity should be either 10.32% (median) or 10.69% (midpoint).

In May 2019 the FERC staff filed its direct and answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, the FERC staff calculates an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 9.89% based on the application of FERC’s proposed methodology. The FERC staff’s direct and answering testimony noted that an authorized return on equity of 9.89% for the first refund period was within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity for the second refund period, as calculated using a study period ending January 31, 2019 for the second refund period.

In June 2019, System Entergy filed testimony responding to the testimony filed by the FERC staff. Among other things, System Energy’s testimony rebutted arguments raised by the FERC staff and provided updated calculations for the second refund period based on the study period ending May 31, 2019. For that refund period, System Energy’s testimony shows that strict application of the return on equity methodology proposed by the FERC staff indicates that the second complaint would not be dismissed, and the new return on equity would be set at 9.65% (median) or 9.74% (midpoint). System Energy’s testimony argues that these results are insufficient in light of benchmarks such as state returns on equity and treasury bond yields, and instead proposes that the calculated returns on equity for the second period should be either 9.91% (median) or 10.3% (midpoint). System Energy’s testimony also argues that, under application of its proposed modified methodology, the 10.10% return on equity calculated for the first refund period would fall within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity for the second refund period. System Energy is recording a provision against revenue for the potential outcome of this proceeding.

Also in June 2019, the FERC’s Chief ALJ issued an order terminating settlement discussions in the amended complaint addressing System Energy’s capital structure. The ALJ consolidated the amended complaint with the ongoing return on equity proceeding and set new procedural deadlines for the consolidated hearing, such that the hearing will commence in January 2020 and the initial decision will be due in June 2020.

Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1.

In February 2019 the presiding ALJ ruled that the hearing ordered by the FERC includes the issue of whether specific subcategories of accumulated deferred income tax should be included in, or excluded from, System Energy’s formula rate. In March 2019 the LPSC, MPSC, APSC and City Council filed direct testimony. The LPSC testimony seeks refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income taxes associated with uncertain tax positions (claimed to be approximately $334.5 million as of December 2018), and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest (claimed to be approximately $274.8 million), as well as interest on those amounts. The direct testimony of the City Council and the APSC and MPSC address various issues raised by the LPSC. System Energy disputes that any refunds are owed for billings under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. A hearing has been scheduled for November 2019.

In June 2019 System Energy filed answering testimony in the sale-leaseback complaint proceeding arguing that the FERC should reject all claims for refunds. Among other things, System Energy argued that claims for refunds of the costs of lease renewal payments and capital additions should be rejected because those costs were recovered consistent with the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate, System Energy was not over or double recovering any costs, and ratepayers will save approximately $850 million over initial and renewal terms of the leases. System Energy

argued that claims for refunds associated with liabilities arising from uncertain tax positions should be rejected because the liabilities do not provide cost-free capital, the repayment timing of the liabilities is uncertain, and the outcome of the underlying tax positions is uncertain. System Energy’s testimony also challenged the refund calculations supplied by the other parties.

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy Mississippi

As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Mississippi has approval from the MPSC to collect a storm damage provision of $1.75 million per month. If Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated storm damage provision balance exceeds $15 million, the collection of the storm damage provision ceases until such time that the accumulated storm damage provision becomes less than $10 million. As of May 31, 2019, Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance was less than $10 million. Accordingly, Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with July 2019 bills.

Rate and Regulatory Matters

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

Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion.

Regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

System Energy

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

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery

Entergy Arkansas

Production Cost Allocation Rider

In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination pursuant to the production cost allocation rider, which reflected a credit to customers for the recovery of the true-up adjustment resulting from the 2018 over-recovered retail balance of $0.1 million and the recovery of a $4.2 million payment to Entergy Arkansas as a result of the FERC’s May 2018 decision in the 2005 bandwidth proceeding, in which the FERC directed a compliance filing to be made that consisted of the comprehensive recalculation of the bandwidth formula rate with true-up payments and

receipts based on test period data for June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. The rates for the 2019 production cost allocation rider update are effective July 2019 through June 2020.

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01882 per kWh to $0.01462 per kWh and became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2019. In March 2019 the Arkansas Attorney General filed a response to Entergy Arkansas’s annual adjustment and included with its filing a motion for investigation of alleged overcharges to customers in connection with the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. Entergy Arkansas filed its response to the Attorney General’s motion in April 2019 in which Entergy Arkansas stated its intent to initiate a proceeding to address recovery issues related to the October 2018 FERC order. In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas initiated the opportunity sales recovery proceeding, discussed below, and requested that the APSC establish that proceeding as the single designated proceeding in which interested parties may assert claims related to the appropriate retail rate treatment of the FERC October 2018 order and related FERC orders in the opportunity sales proceeding. In June 2019 the APSC granted Entergy Arkansas’s request and also denied the Attorney General’s motion in the energy cost recovery proceeding seeking an investigation into Entergy Arkansas’s annual energy cost recovery rider adjustment and referred the evaluation of such matters to the opportunity sales recovery proceeding.

Entergy Louisiana

In July 2014 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 by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. In January 2019 the LPSC staff issued its audit report recommending that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $7.3 million, plus interest, to customers based upon the imputation of a claim of vendor fault in servicing its nuclear plant. Entergy Louisiana recorded a provision in the first quarter 2019 for the potential outcome of the audit. A procedural schedule has been set to address the report and contested issues, with a hearing scheduled in November 2019.

Entergy Mississippi

Mississippi Attorney General Complaint

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The defendants have denied the allegations. In December 2008 the Attorney General’s lawsuit was removed to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. Pre-trial and settlement conferences were held in October 2018. In October 2018 the District Court rescheduled the trial to April 2019. In April 2019 the District Court remanded the Attorney General’s lawsuit to the Hinds County Chancery Court in Jackson, Mississippi. A hearing on procedural and dispositive motions is scheduled for August 2019.

Retail Rate Proceedings

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

Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas)

Retail Rates

2019 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2019 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2020 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the projected year 2020 and a netting adjustment for the historical year 2018. The total proposed formula rate plan rider revenue change designed to produce a target rate of return on common equity of 9.75% is $15.3 million, which is based upon a deficiency of approximately $61.9 million for the 2020 projected year, netted with a credit of approximately $46.6 million in the 2018 historical year netting adjustment. During 2018 Entergy Arkansas experienced higher-than expected sales volume, and actual costs were lower than forecasted. These changes, coupled with a reduced income tax rate resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, resulted in the credit for the historical year netting adjustment. In the fourth quarter 2018 Entergy Arkansas recorded a provision of $35.1 million that reflected the estimate of the historical year netting adjustment that was expected to be included in the 2019 filing. In 2019, Entergy Arkansas recorded additional provisions totaling $11.5 million to reflect the updated estimate of the historical year netting adjustment included in the 2019 filing. The proposed new formula rates would go into effect in January 2020.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)

Retail Rates - Electric

2017 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed an update to its 2017 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the estimated first-year revenue requirement of $109.5 million associated with the St. Charles Power Station. Commercial operation at St. Charles Power Station commenced in May 2019. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of June 2019.

2018 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2018 calendar year operations. The 2018 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on common equity of 10.61% leading to a base rider formula rate plan revenue decrease of $8.9 million. While base rider formula rate plan revenue will decrease as a result of this filing, overall formula rate plan revenues will increase by approximately $118.7 million. This outcome is primarily driven by a reduction to the credits previously flowed through the tax reform adjustment mechanism and an increase in the transmission recovery mechanism, partially offset by reductions in the additional capacity mechanism revenue requirements and extraordinary cost items. The filing is subject to review by the LPSC with resulting rates to be implemented in September 2019, subject to refund if there are contested issues.

Entergy Louisiana also included in its filing a presentation of an initial proposal to combine the legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana residential rates, which combination, if approved, would be accomplished on a revenue-neutral basis intended not to affect the rates of other customer classes. Entergy Louisiana contemplates that any combination of residential rates resulting from this request would be implemented with the results of the 2019 test year formula rate plan filing.

Investigation of Costs Billed by Entergy Services

In November 2018 the LPSC issued a notice of proceeding initiating an investigation into costs incurred by Entergy Services that are included in the retail rates of Entergy Louisiana. As noted in the notice of proceeding, the LPSC observed an increase in capital construction-related costs that have been incurred by Entergy Services. Discovery

is ongoing and has included efforts to seek highly detailed information on a broad range of matters unrelated to the scope of the audit.

Retail Rates - Gas

2018 Rate Stabilization Plan Filing

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization for the test year ended September 30, 2018. Entergy Louisiana made a compliance filing in April 2019 and rates were implemented during the first billing cycle of May 2019, subject to refund and final LPSC review.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Formula Rate Plan

In March 2019, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2019 test year filing and 2018 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2018 calendar year to be above the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 test year filing shows a $36.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.94% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2018 look-back filing compares actual 2018 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and shows a $10.1 million interim decrease in formula rate plan revenues is necessary. In the fourth quarter 2018, Entergy Mississippi recorded a provision of $9.3 million that reflected the estimate of the difference between the 2018 expected earned rate of return on rate base and an established performance-adjusted benchmark rate of return under the formula rate plan performance-adjusted bandwidth mechanism. In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Mississippi recorded a $0.8 million increase in the provision to reflect the amount shown in the look-back filing. In June 2019, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation that confirmed that the 2019 test year filing showed that a $32.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.93% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. Additionally, pursuant to the joint stipulation, Entergy Mississippi’s 2018 look-back filing reflected an earned return on rate base of 7.81% in calendar year 2018 which is above the look-back benchmark return on rate base of 7.13%, resulting in an $11 million decrease in formula rate plan revenues on an interim basis through June 2020. In the second quarter 2019, Entergy Mississippi recorded an additional $0.9 million increase in the provision to reflect the $11 million shown in the look-back filing. In June 2019 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with rates effective for the first billing cycle of July 2019.

Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans)

Retail Rates

See the Form 10-K for discussion of the electric and gas base rate case filed by Entergy New Orleans in September 2018. The evidentiary hearing in this proceeding was held in June 2019. The record and post-hearing briefs were submitted in July 2019, with a City Council decision on the matter expected by October 2019.

In August 2019, Entergy New Orleans sent a letter to the City Council proposing a framework for settlement of the rate case. That framework includes, among other things: (1) a total reduction in revenues of approximately $30 million ($27 million electric, $3 million gas); (2) a reduced return on common equity lower than 10.5%, but still commensurate with Entergy New Orleans’s level of risk, paired with three-year electric and gas formula rate plans with forward-looking features; (3) a demand-side management program intended to achieve greater penetration of the City Council’s Energy Smart programs and make progress towards the City Council’s energy efficiency goals. The letter also sets out proposed next steps to achieve a resolution of the proceeding.

Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Texas)

Base Rate Case

In January 2019, Entergy Texas filed for recovery of rate case expenses totaling $7.2 million. The amounts requested primarily include internal and external expenses related to litigating the 2018 base rate case. Parties filed testimony in April 2019 recommending a disallowance ranging from $3.2 million to $4.2 million of the $7.2 million requested. In May 2019, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony responding to the parties’ positions. A hearing is scheduled for September 2019.

Other Filings

In March 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider. The proposed new DCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $3.2 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. In June 2019 the ALJ issued an order approving interim rates effective June 2019 at the level proposed in Entergy Texas’s application. The proceeding has been returned to the PUCT for approval of the settlement agreement filed in the proceeding, at which point the interim rates would become permanent.

In December 2018, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider. The proposed new TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $2.7 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and September 30, 2018. In April 2019 parties filed testimony proposing a load growth adjustment, which would have fully offset Entergy Texas’s proposed TCRF revenue requirement. In July 2019 the PUCT granted Entergy Texas’s application as filed to begin recovery of the requested $2.7 million annual revenue requirement, rejecting opposing parties’ proposed adjustment; however, the PUCT found that the question of prudence of the actual investment costs should be determined in Entergy Texas’s next rate case similar to the procedure used for the costs recovered through the DCRF rider.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the hearing on the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 occurred in July 2016. The presiding judge issued an initial decision in November 2016. In the initial decision, the presiding judge agreed with the Utility operating companies’ position that: (1) interest on the bandwidth payments for the 2005 test period should be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date that the bandwidth payments for that calculation are paid, which is consistent with how the Utility operating companies performed the calculation; and (2) a portion of Entergy Louisiana’s 2001-vintage Louisiana state net operating loss accumulated deferred income tax that results from the Vidalia tax deduction should be excluded from the 2005 test period bandwidth calculation. Various participants filed briefs on exceptions and/or briefs opposing exceptions related to the initial decision, including the LPSC, the APSC, the FERC trial staff, and Entergy Services. In May 2018 the FERC issued an order affirming the initial decision and ordered a comprehensive recalculation of the bandwidth payments/receipts for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 and a recalculation of the 2006 and 2007 test years as a result of limited revisions. Entergy filed the comprehensive recalculation of the bandwidth payments/receipts for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 and the 2006 and 2007 test years in July 2018. The filing shows the additional following payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies:



	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	($4)
Entergy Louisiana	($23)
Entergy Mississippi	$16
Entergy New Orleans	$5
Entergy Texas	$6

These payments were made in July 2018. In January 2019 the FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing of the May 2018 order. In May 2019 the FERC accepted the July 2018 compliance filing, and the LPSC sought rehearing of that decision in June 2019.

Rough Production Cost Equalization

2010 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2009 Production Costs

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 also filed protests. In July 2010 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2010, subject to refund. After an abeyance of the proceeding schedule, a hearing was held in March 2014 and in December 2015 the FERC issued an order. Among other things, the December 2015 order directed Entergy to submit a compliance filing. In January 2016 the LPSC, the APSC, and Entergy filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s December 2015 order. In February 2016, Entergy submitted the compliance filing ordered in the December 2015 order. 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)

In September 2016 the FERC accepted the February 2016 compliance filing subject to a further compliance filing made in November 2016. The further compliance filing was required as a result of an order issued in September 2016 ruling on the January 2016 rehearing requests filed by the LPSC, the APSC, and Entergy. In the order addressing the rehearing requests, the FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request and directed that interest be calculated on the payment/receipt amounts. The FERC also granted the APSC’s and Entergy’s rehearing request and ordered the removal of both securitized asset accumulated deferred income taxes and contra-securitization accumulated deferred income taxes from the calculation. In November 2016, Entergy submitted its compliance filing in response to the FERC’s order on rehearing. The compliance filing included a revised calculation of the bandwidth true-up payments and receipts based on 2009 test year data and interest calculations. The LPSC protested the interest calculations. In November 2017 the FERC issued an order rejecting the November 2016 compliance filing. The FERC determined that the payments detailed in the November 2016 compliance filing did not include adequate interest for the payments from Entergy Arkansas to Entergy Louisiana because it did not include interest on the principal portion of the payment that was made in February 2016. In December 2017, Entergy recalculated the interest pursuant to the November 2017 order. As a result of the recalculations, Entergy Arkansas owed very minor payments to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy

Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. In June 2019 the FERC issued an order denying the LPSC’s rehearing request of FERC’s September 2016 order. The LPSC rehearing request asked the FERC to reverse its decision that both securitized asset accumulated deferred income taxes and contra-securitization accumulated deferred income taxes should be removed from the bandwidth calculation.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2018, Entergy made a compliance filing in response to the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. The compliance filing provided a final calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payments to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. No protests were filed in response to the December 2018 compliance filing. The December 2018 compliance filing is pending FERC action.

In February 2019 the LPSC filed a new complaint relating to two issues that were raised in the opportunity sales proceeding, but that, in its October 2018 order, the FERC held were outside the scope of the proceeding. In March 2019, Entergy Services filed an answer and motion to dismiss the new complaint.

In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed an application and supporting testimony with the APSC requesting approval of a special rider tariff to recover the costs of these payments from its retail customers over a 24-month period. The application requested that the APSC approve the rider to take effect within 30 days or, if suspended by the APSC as allowed by commission rule, approve the rider to take effect in the first billing cycle of the first month occurring 30 days after issuance of the APSC’s order approving the rider. In June 2019 the APSC suspended Entergy Arkansas’s tariff and granted Entergy Arkansas’s motion asking the APSC to establish the proceeding as the single designated proceeding in which interested parties may assert claims related to the appropriate retail rate treatment of the FERC’s October 2018 order and related FERC orders in the opportunity sales proceeding.

Complaints Against System Energy

Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the return on equity complaints filed by the APSC and the MPSC and by the LPSC against System Energy. The LPSC’s complaint also includes a challenge to System Energy’s capital structure. In August 2018 the FERC issued an order dismissing the LPSC’s request to investigate System Energy’s capital structure and setting for hearing the return on equity complaint, with a refund effective date of April 2018. The portion of the LPSC’s complaint dealing with return on equity was subsequently consolidated with the APSC and MPSC complaint for hearing. The consolidated hearing has been scheduled for September 2019, and the parties are required to address an order (issued in a separate proceeding involving New England transmission owners) that proposed modifying the FERC’s standard methodology for determining return on equity. In September 2018, System Energy filed a request for rehearing and the LPSC filed a request for rehearing or reconsideration of the FERC’s August 2018 order. The LPSC’s request referenced an amended complaint that it filed on the same day raising the same capital structure claim the FERC had earlier dismissed. The FERC initiated a new proceeding for the amended capital structure complaint, and System Energy submitted a response in October 2018. In January 2019 the FERC set the amended capital structure complaint for settlement and hearing proceedings. Settlement procedures in the capital structure proceeding commenced in February 2019. As noted below, in June 2019 settlement discussions were terminated and the amended capital structure complaint was consolidated with the ongoing return on equity proceeding.

In January 2019 the LPSC and the APSC and MPSC filed direct testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the refund period January 23, 2017 through April 23, 2018, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.81% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.24%. For the refund period April 27, 2018 through July 27, 2019, and for application on a prospective basis, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.97% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.41%. In March 2019, System Energy submitted answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, System Energy’s testimony argues for a return on equity

of 10.10% (median) or 10.70% (midpoint). For the second refund period, System Energy’s testimony shows that the calculated returns on equity for the first period fall within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity, and thus the second complaint should be dismissed (and the first period return on equity used going forward). If the FERC nonetheless were to set a new return on equity for the second period (and going forward), System Energy argues the return on equity should be either 10.32% (median) or 10.69% (midpoint).

In May 2019 the FERC staff filed its direct and answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, the FERC staff calculates an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 9.89% based on the application of FERC’s proposed methodology. The FERC staff’s direct and answering testimony noted that an authorized return on equity of 9.89% for the first refund period was within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity for the second refund period, as calculated using a study period ending January 31, 2019 for the second refund period.

In June 2019, System Entergy filed testimony responding to the testimony filed by the FERC staff. Among other things, System Energy’s testimony rebutted arguments raised by the FERC staff and provided updated calculations for the second refund period based on the study period ending May 31, 2019. For that refund period, System Energy’s testimony shows that strict application of the return on equity methodology proposed by the FERC staff indicates that the second complaint would not be dismissed, and the new return on equity would be set at 9.65% (median) or 9.74% (midpoint). System Energy’s testimony argues that these results are insufficient in light of benchmarks such as state returns on equity and treasury bond yields, and instead proposes that the calculated returns on equity for the second period should be either 9.91% (median) or 10.3% (midpoint). System Energy’s testimony also argues that, under application of its proposed modified methodology, the 10.10% return on equity calculated for the first refund period would fall within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity for the second refund period. System Energy is recording a provision against revenue for the potential outcome of this proceeding.

Also in June 2019, the FERC’s Chief ALJ issued an order terminating settlement discussions in the amended complaint addressing System Energy’s capital structure. The ALJ consolidated the amended complaint with the ongoing return on equity proceeding and set new procedural deadlines for the consolidated hearing, such that the hearing will commence in January 2020 and the initial decision will be due in June 2020.

Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1.

In February 2019 the presiding ALJ ruled that the hearing ordered by the FERC includes the issue of whether specific subcategories of accumulated deferred income tax should be included in, or excluded from, System Energy’s formula rate. In March 2019 the LPSC, MPSC, APSC and City Council filed direct testimony. The LPSC testimony seeks refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income taxes associated with uncertain tax positions (claimed to be approximately $334.5 million as of December 2018), and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest (claimed to be approximately $274.8 million), as well as interest on those amounts. The direct testimony of the City Council and the APSC and MPSC address various issues raised by the LPSC. System Energy disputes that any refunds are owed for billings under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. A hearing has been scheduled for November 2019.

In June 2019 System Energy filed answering testimony in the sale-leaseback complaint proceeding arguing that the FERC should reject all claims for refunds. Among other things, System Energy argued that claims for refunds of the costs of lease renewal payments and capital additions should be rejected because those costs were recovered consistent with the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate, System Energy was not over or double recovering any costs, and ratepayers will save approximately $850 million over initial and renewal terms of the leases. System Energy

argued that claims for refunds associated with liabilities arising from uncertain tax positions should be rejected because the liabilities do not provide cost-free capital, the repayment timing of the liabilities is uncertain, and the outcome of the underlying tax positions is uncertain. System Energy’s testimony also challenged the refund calculations supplied by the other parties.

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy Mississippi

As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Mississippi has approval from the MPSC to collect a storm damage provision of $1.75 million per month. If Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated storm damage provision balance exceeds $15 million, the collection of the storm damage provision ceases until such time that the accumulated storm damage provision becomes less than $10 million. As of May 31, 2019, Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance was less than $10 million. Accordingly, Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with July 2019 bills.

Rate and Regulatory Matters

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

Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities

See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion.

Regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

System Energy

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

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery

Entergy Arkansas

Production Cost Allocation Rider

In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination pursuant to the production cost allocation rider, which reflected a credit to customers for the recovery of the true-up adjustment resulting from the 2018 over-recovered retail balance of $0.1 million and the recovery of a $4.2 million payment to Entergy Arkansas as a result of the FERC’s May 2018 decision in the 2005 bandwidth proceeding, in which the FERC directed a compliance filing to be made that consisted of the comprehensive recalculation of the bandwidth formula rate with true-up payments and

receipts based on test period data for June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. The rates for the 2019 production cost allocation rider update are effective July 2019 through June 2020.

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01882 per kWh to $0.01462 per kWh and became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2019. In March 2019 the Arkansas Attorney General filed a response to Entergy Arkansas’s annual adjustment and included with its filing a motion for investigation of alleged overcharges to customers in connection with the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. Entergy Arkansas filed its response to the Attorney General’s motion in April 2019 in which Entergy Arkansas stated its intent to initiate a proceeding to address recovery issues related to the October 2018 FERC order. In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas initiated the opportunity sales recovery proceeding, discussed below, and requested that the APSC establish that proceeding as the single designated proceeding in which interested parties may assert claims related to the appropriate retail rate treatment of the FERC October 2018 order and related FERC orders in the opportunity sales proceeding. In June 2019 the APSC granted Entergy Arkansas’s request and also denied the Attorney General’s motion in the energy cost recovery proceeding seeking an investigation into Entergy Arkansas’s annual energy cost recovery rider adjustment and referred the evaluation of such matters to the opportunity sales recovery proceeding.

Entergy Louisiana

In July 2014 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 by Entergy Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. In January 2019 the LPSC staff issued its audit report recommending that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $7.3 million, plus interest, to customers based upon the imputation of a claim of vendor fault in servicing its nuclear plant. Entergy Louisiana recorded a provision in the first quarter 2019 for the potential outcome of the audit. A procedural schedule has been set to address the report and contested issues, with a hearing scheduled in November 2019.

Entergy Mississippi

Mississippi Attorney General Complaint

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and restitution. The defendants have denied the allegations. In December 2008 the Attorney General’s lawsuit was removed to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. Pre-trial and settlement conferences were held in October 2018. In October 2018 the District Court rescheduled the trial to April 2019. In April 2019 the District Court remanded the Attorney General’s lawsuit to the Hinds County Chancery Court in Jackson, Mississippi. A hearing on procedural and dispositive motions is scheduled for August 2019.

Retail Rate Proceedings

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

Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas)

Retail Rates

2019 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2019 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2020 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the projected year 2020 and a netting adjustment for the historical year 2018. The total proposed formula rate plan rider revenue change designed to produce a target rate of return on common equity of 9.75% is $15.3 million, which is based upon a deficiency of approximately $61.9 million for the 2020 projected year, netted with a credit of approximately $46.6 million in the 2018 historical year netting adjustment. During 2018 Entergy Arkansas experienced higher-than expected sales volume, and actual costs were lower than forecasted. These changes, coupled with a reduced income tax rate resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, resulted in the credit for the historical year netting adjustment. In the fourth quarter 2018 Entergy Arkansas recorded a provision of $35.1 million that reflected the estimate of the historical year netting adjustment that was expected to be included in the 2019 filing. In 2019, Entergy Arkansas recorded additional provisions totaling $11.5 million to reflect the updated estimate of the historical year netting adjustment included in the 2019 filing. The proposed new formula rates would go into effect in January 2020.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)

Retail Rates - Electric

2017 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed an update to its 2017 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the estimated first-year revenue requirement of $109.5 million associated with the St. Charles Power Station. Commercial operation at St. Charles Power Station commenced in May 2019. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of June 2019.

2018 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2018 calendar year operations. The 2018 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on common equity of 10.61% leading to a base rider formula rate plan revenue decrease of $8.9 million. While base rider formula rate plan revenue will decrease as a result of this filing, overall formula rate plan revenues will increase by approximately $118.7 million. This outcome is primarily driven by a reduction to the credits previously flowed through the tax reform adjustment mechanism and an increase in the transmission recovery mechanism, partially offset by reductions in the additional capacity mechanism revenue requirements and extraordinary cost items. The filing is subject to review by the LPSC with resulting rates to be implemented in September 2019, subject to refund if there are contested issues.

Entergy Louisiana also included in its filing a presentation of an initial proposal to combine the legacy Entergy Louisiana and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana residential rates, which combination, if approved, would be accomplished on a revenue-neutral basis intended not to affect the rates of other customer classes. Entergy Louisiana contemplates that any combination of residential rates resulting from this request would be implemented with the results of the 2019 test year formula rate plan filing.

Investigation of Costs Billed by Entergy Services

In November 2018 the LPSC issued a notice of proceeding initiating an investigation into costs incurred by Entergy Services that are included in the retail rates of Entergy Louisiana. As noted in the notice of proceeding, the LPSC observed an increase in capital construction-related costs that have been incurred by Entergy Services. Discovery

is ongoing and has included efforts to seek highly detailed information on a broad range of matters unrelated to the scope of the audit.

Retail Rates - Gas

2018 Rate Stabilization Plan Filing

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in January 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization for the test year ended September 30, 2018. Entergy Louisiana made a compliance filing in April 2019 and rates were implemented during the first billing cycle of May 2019, subject to refund and final LPSC review.

Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)

Formula Rate Plan

In March 2019, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2019 test year filing and 2018 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2018 calendar year to be above the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 test year filing shows a $36.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.94% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2018 look-back filing compares actual 2018 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and shows a $10.1 million interim decrease in formula rate plan revenues is necessary. In the fourth quarter 2018, Entergy Mississippi recorded a provision of $9.3 million that reflected the estimate of the difference between the 2018 expected earned rate of return on rate base and an established performance-adjusted benchmark rate of return under the formula rate plan performance-adjusted bandwidth mechanism. In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Mississippi recorded a $0.8 million increase in the provision to reflect the amount shown in the look-back filing. In June 2019, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation that confirmed that the 2019 test year filing showed that a $32.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.93% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. Additionally, pursuant to the joint stipulation, Entergy Mississippi’s 2018 look-back filing reflected an earned return on rate base of 7.81% in calendar year 2018 which is above the look-back benchmark return on rate base of 7.13%, resulting in an $11 million decrease in formula rate plan revenues on an interim basis through June 2020. In the second quarter 2019, Entergy Mississippi recorded an additional $0.9 million increase in the provision to reflect the $11 million shown in the look-back filing. In June 2019 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with rates effective for the first billing cycle of July 2019.

Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans)

Retail Rates

See the Form 10-K for discussion of the electric and gas base rate case filed by Entergy New Orleans in September 2018. The evidentiary hearing in this proceeding was held in June 2019. The record and post-hearing briefs were submitted in July 2019, with a City Council decision on the matter expected by October 2019.

In August 2019, Entergy New Orleans sent a letter to the City Council proposing a framework for settlement of the rate case. That framework includes, among other things: (1) a total reduction in revenues of approximately $30 million ($27 million electric, $3 million gas); (2) a reduced return on common equity lower than 10.5%, but still commensurate with Entergy New Orleans’s level of risk, paired with three-year electric and gas formula rate plans with forward-looking features; (3) a demand-side management program intended to achieve greater penetration of the City Council’s Energy Smart programs and make progress towards the City Council’s energy efficiency goals. The letter also sets out proposed next steps to achieve a resolution of the proceeding.

Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Texas)

Base Rate Case

In January 2019, Entergy Texas filed for recovery of rate case expenses totaling $7.2 million. The amounts requested primarily include internal and external expenses related to litigating the 2018 base rate case. Parties filed testimony in April 2019 recommending a disallowance ranging from $3.2 million to $4.2 million of the $7.2 million requested. In May 2019, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony responding to the parties’ positions. A hearing is scheduled for September 2019.

Other Filings

In March 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider. The proposed new DCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $3.2 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. In June 2019 the ALJ issued an order approving interim rates effective June 2019 at the level proposed in Entergy Texas’s application. The proceeding has been returned to the PUCT for approval of the settlement agreement filed in the proceeding, at which point the interim rates would become permanent.

In December 2018, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider. The proposed new TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $2.7 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and September 30, 2018. In April 2019 parties filed testimony proposing a load growth adjustment, which would have fully offset Entergy Texas’s proposed TCRF revenue requirement. In July 2019 the PUCT granted Entergy Texas’s application as filed to begin recovery of the requested $2.7 million annual revenue requirement, rejecting opposing parties’ proposed adjustment; however, the PUCT found that the question of prudence of the actual investment costs should be determined in Entergy Texas’s next rate case similar to the procedure used for the costs recovered through the DCRF rider.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the hearing on the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 occurred in July 2016. The presiding judge issued an initial decision in November 2016. In the initial decision, the presiding judge agreed with the Utility operating companies’ position that: (1) interest on the bandwidth payments for the 2005 test period should be accrued from June 1, 2006 until the date that the bandwidth payments for that calculation are paid, which is consistent with how the Utility operating companies performed the calculation; and (2) a portion of Entergy Louisiana’s 2001-vintage Louisiana state net operating loss accumulated deferred income tax that results from the Vidalia tax deduction should be excluded from the 2005 test period bandwidth calculation. Various participants filed briefs on exceptions and/or briefs opposing exceptions related to the initial decision, including the LPSC, the APSC, the FERC trial staff, and Entergy Services. In May 2018 the FERC issued an order affirming the initial decision and ordered a comprehensive recalculation of the bandwidth payments/receipts for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 and a recalculation of the 2006 and 2007 test years as a result of limited revisions. Entergy filed the comprehensive recalculation of the bandwidth payments/receipts for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 and the 2006 and 2007 test years in July 2018. The filing shows the additional following payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies:



	Payments (Receipts)
	(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas	($4)
Entergy Louisiana	($23)
Entergy Mississippi	$16
Entergy New Orleans	$5
Entergy Texas	$6

These payments were made in July 2018. In January 2019 the FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing of the May 2018 order. In May 2019 the FERC accepted the July 2018 compliance filing, and the LPSC sought rehearing of that decision in June 2019.

Rough Production Cost Equalization

2010 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2009 Production Costs

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 also filed protests. In July 2010 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2010, subject to refund. After an abeyance of the proceeding schedule, a hearing was held in March 2014 and in December 2015 the FERC issued an order. Among other things, the December 2015 order directed Entergy to submit a compliance filing. In January 2016 the LPSC, the APSC, and Entergy filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s December 2015 order. In February 2016, Entergy submitted the compliance filing ordered in the December 2015 order. 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)

In September 2016 the FERC accepted the February 2016 compliance filing subject to a further compliance filing made in November 2016. The further compliance filing was required as a result of an order issued in September 2016 ruling on the January 2016 rehearing requests filed by the LPSC, the APSC, and Entergy. In the order addressing the rehearing requests, the FERC granted the LPSC’s rehearing request and directed that interest be calculated on the payment/receipt amounts. The FERC also granted the APSC’s and Entergy’s rehearing request and ordered the removal of both securitized asset accumulated deferred income taxes and contra-securitization accumulated deferred income taxes from the calculation. In November 2016, Entergy submitted its compliance filing in response to the FERC’s order on rehearing. The compliance filing included a revised calculation of the bandwidth true-up payments and receipts based on 2009 test year data and interest calculations. The LPSC protested the interest calculations. In November 2017 the FERC issued an order rejecting the November 2016 compliance filing. The FERC determined that the payments detailed in the November 2016 compliance filing did not include adequate interest for the payments from Entergy Arkansas to Entergy Louisiana because it did not include interest on the principal portion of the payment that was made in February 2016. In December 2017, Entergy recalculated the interest pursuant to the November 2017 order. As a result of the recalculations, Entergy Arkansas owed very minor payments to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy

Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. In June 2019 the FERC issued an order denying the LPSC’s rehearing request of FERC’s September 2016 order. The LPSC rehearing request asked the FERC to reverse its decision that both securitized asset accumulated deferred income taxes and contra-securitization accumulated deferred income taxes should be removed from the bandwidth calculation.

Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in December 2018, Entergy made a compliance filing in response to the FERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. The compliance filing provided a final calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payments to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. No protests were filed in response to the December 2018 compliance filing. The December 2018 compliance filing is pending FERC action.

In February 2019 the LPSC filed a new complaint relating to two issues that were raised in the opportunity sales proceeding, but that, in its October 2018 order, the FERC held were outside the scope of the proceeding. In March 2019, Entergy Services filed an answer and motion to dismiss the new complaint.

In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed an application and supporting testimony with the APSC requesting approval of a special rider tariff to recover the costs of these payments from its retail customers over a 24-month period. The application requested that the APSC approve the rider to take effect within 30 days or, if suspended by the APSC as allowed by commission rule, approve the rider to take effect in the first billing cycle of the first month occurring 30 days after issuance of the APSC’s order approving the rider. In June 2019 the APSC suspended Entergy Arkansas’s tariff and granted Entergy Arkansas’s motion asking the APSC to establish the proceeding as the single designated proceeding in which interested parties may assert claims related to the appropriate retail rate treatment of the FERC’s October 2018 order and related FERC orders in the opportunity sales proceeding.

Complaints Against System Energy

Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the return on equity complaints filed by the APSC and the MPSC and by the LPSC against System Energy. The LPSC’s complaint also includes a challenge to System Energy’s capital structure. In August 2018 the FERC issued an order dismissing the LPSC’s request to investigate System Energy’s capital structure and setting for hearing the return on equity complaint, with a refund effective date of April 2018. The portion of the LPSC’s complaint dealing with return on equity was subsequently consolidated with the APSC and MPSC complaint for hearing. The consolidated hearing has been scheduled for September 2019, and the parties are required to address an order (issued in a separate proceeding involving New England transmission owners) that proposed modifying the FERC’s standard methodology for determining return on equity. In September 2018, System Energy filed a request for rehearing and the LPSC filed a request for rehearing or reconsideration of the FERC’s August 2018 order. The LPSC’s request referenced an amended complaint that it filed on the same day raising the same capital structure claim the FERC had earlier dismissed. The FERC initiated a new proceeding for the amended capital structure complaint, and System Energy submitted a response in October 2018. In January 2019 the FERC set the amended capital structure complaint for settlement and hearing proceedings. Settlement procedures in the capital structure proceeding commenced in February 2019. As noted below, in June 2019 settlement discussions were terminated and the amended capital structure complaint was consolidated with the ongoing return on equity proceeding.

In January 2019 the LPSC and the APSC and MPSC filed direct testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the refund period January 23, 2017 through April 23, 2018, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.81% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.24%. For the refund period April 27, 2018 through July 27, 2019, and for application on a prospective basis, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.97% and the APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.41%. In March 2019, System Energy submitted answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, System Energy’s testimony argues for a return on equity

of 10.10% (median) or 10.70% (midpoint). For the second refund period, System Energy’s testimony shows that the calculated returns on equity for the first period fall within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity, and thus the second complaint should be dismissed (and the first period return on equity used going forward). If the FERC nonetheless were to set a new return on equity for the second period (and going forward), System Energy argues the return on equity should be either 10.32% (median) or 10.69% (midpoint).

In May 2019 the FERC staff filed its direct and answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, the FERC staff calculates an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 9.89% based on the application of FERC’s proposed methodology. The FERC staff’s direct and answering testimony noted that an authorized return on equity of 9.89% for the first refund period was within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity for the second refund period, as calculated using a study period ending January 31, 2019 for the second refund period.

In June 2019, System Entergy filed testimony responding to the testimony filed by the FERC staff. Among other things, System Energy’s testimony rebutted arguments raised by the FERC staff and provided updated calculations for the second refund period based on the study period ending May 31, 2019. For that refund period, System Energy’s testimony shows that strict application of the return on equity methodology proposed by the FERC staff indicates that the second complaint would not be dismissed, and the new return on equity would be set at 9.65% (median) or 9.74% (midpoint). System Energy’s testimony argues that these results are insufficient in light of benchmarks such as state returns on equity and treasury bond yields, and instead proposes that the calculated returns on equity for the second period should be either 9.91% (median) or 10.3% (midpoint). System Energy’s testimony also argues that, under application of its proposed modified methodology, the 10.10% return on equity calculated for the first refund period would fall within the range of presumptively just and reasonable returns on equity for the second refund period. System Energy is recording a provision against revenue for the potential outcome of this proceeding.

Also in June 2019, the FERC’s Chief ALJ issued an order terminating settlement discussions in the amended complaint addressing System Energy’s capital structure. The ALJ consolidated the amended complaint with the ongoing return on equity proceeding and set new procedural deadlines for the consolidated hearing, such that the hearing will commence in January 2020 and the initial decision will be due in June 2020.

Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1.

In February 2019 the presiding ALJ ruled that the hearing ordered by the FERC includes the issue of whether specific subcategories of accumulated deferred income tax should be included in, or excluded from, System Energy’s formula rate. In March 2019 the LPSC, MPSC, APSC and City Council filed direct testimony. The LPSC testimony seeks refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income taxes associated with uncertain tax positions (claimed to be approximately $334.5 million as of December 2018), and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest (claimed to be approximately $274.8 million), as well as interest on those amounts. The direct testimony of the City Council and the APSC and MPSC address various issues raised by the LPSC. System Energy disputes that any refunds are owed for billings under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. A hearing has been scheduled for November 2019.

In June 2019 System Energy filed answering testimony in the sale-leaseback complaint proceeding arguing that the FERC should reject all claims for refunds. Among other things, System Energy argued that claims for refunds of the costs of lease renewal payments and capital additions should be rejected because those costs were recovered consistent with the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate, System Energy was not over or double recovering any costs, and ratepayers will save approximately $850 million over initial and renewal terms of the leases. System Energy

argued that claims for refunds associated with liabilities arising from uncertain tax positions should be rejected because the liabilities do not provide cost-free capital, the repayment timing of the liabilities is uncertain, and the outcome of the underlying tax positions is uncertain. System Energy’s testimony also challenged the refund calculations supplied by the other parties.

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

Entergy Mississippi

As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Mississippi has approval from the MPSC to collect a storm damage provision of $1.75 million per month. If Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated storm damage provision balance exceeds $15 million, the collection of the storm damage provision ceases until such time that the accumulated storm damage provision becomes less than $10 million. As of May 31, 2019, Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance was less than $10 million. Accordingly, Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with July 2019 bills.